Meeting phoenix-pdf-2021-07-01 complete
2021-07-01 · Formal Meeting
Items: 119
Formal Meeting
Item text
***REVISED ITEM (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Mayor and Council Appointments
to Boards and Commissions
Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 15
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: July 1, 2021
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: REVISED* FOR ADD-ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Citizens Transportation Commission
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:
Christina Panaitescu
Ms. Panaitescu is the Grants & Neighborhood Services Supervisor at the City of
Goodyear and resident of District 1. She replaces Frank Steinmetz for a term to expire
June 30, 2024.
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Joan Berry
Ms. Berry is a retired teacher and a resident of District 2. She replaces William Smith for
a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for reappointment:
David Moody
Mr. Moody will serve his second term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for reappointment:
Jose Gabriel Loyola
Mr. Loyola will serve his second term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:
Page 16
Shannon McBride
Ms. McBride is the Executive Director of 19NORTH and a resident of District 5. She
replaces Susan Glawe for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following for appointment:
Michael Infanzon
Mr. Infanzon is a Managing Partner at EPIC Policy Group and a resident of District 1.
He replaces Roy Miller for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:
Carolyn Chatman
Ms. Chatman is a retired sustainability professional and City of Phoenix employee and a
resident of District 8. She replaces David Adame for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Vice Mayor Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:
Jessica Bristow
Ms. Bristow is a Digital Organizer for CHISPA Arizona and a resident of District 4. She
fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues
I recommend the following for appointment as Chair:
Nicole Anderson
Ms. Anderson will serve as Chair of the commission for a term to expire December 31,
2021.
*Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force
I recommend the following for appointment:
Stefanie Calens
Ms. Calens is the Board Chair of loveSTRONG Ministries and a resident of District 1.
*Phoenix Business Workforce Development Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Page 17
Karen Carter
Ms. Carter is the Chief of Staff at Terros Health. She fills a Healthcare Business
vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Dawna Cato
Dr. Cato is the CEO of the Arizona Nurses Association. She fills a Community Based
Organization seat for a term to expire June 30, 2022.
Adam Hawkins
Mr. Hawkins is the President of Global External Relations. He replaces Susan Ciardullo
in the Small Business category for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
I recommend the following for reappointment:
Nicholas Bielinski
Mr. Bielinski will serve his first full term to expire June 30,2024.
Latasha Causey
Ms. Causey will serve her first full term to expire June 30,2024.
Meghan McGilvra
Ms. McGilvra will be reassigned to a Labor seat for her first full term to expire June 30,
2024.
Luke Tate
Mr. Tate will be reassigned to an Education and Training seat for his first full term to
expire June 30, 2024.
Melissa Trujillo
Ms. Trujillo will be reassigned to a Workforce Representative Labor seat and will
replace James Frolov for a term to expire June 30, 2022.
Page 18
Report
to Boards and Commissions
Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.
Page 15
ATTACHMENT A
To: City Council Date: July 1, 2021
From: Mayor Kate Gallego
Subject: REVISED* FOR ADD-ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES
The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:
Citizens Transportation Commission
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:
Christina Panaitescu
Ms. Panaitescu is the Grants & Neighborhood Services Supervisor at the City of
Goodyear and resident of District 1. She replaces Frank Steinmetz for a term to expire
June 30, 2024.
Councilman Jim Waring recommends the following for appointment:
Joan Berry
Ms. Berry is a retired teacher and a resident of District 2. She replaces William Smith for
a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for reappointment:
David Moody
Mr. Moody will serve his second term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Laura Pastor recommends the following for reappointment:
Jose Gabriel Loyola
Mr. Loyola will serve his second term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:
Page 16
Shannon McBride
Ms. McBride is the Executive Director of 19NORTH and a resident of District 5. She
replaces Susan Glawe for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following for appointment:
Michael Infanzon
Mr. Infanzon is a Managing Partner at EPIC Policy Group and a resident of District 1.
He replaces Roy Miller for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:
Carolyn Chatman
Ms. Chatman is a retired sustainability professional and City of Phoenix employee and a
resident of District 8. She replaces David Adame for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Vice Mayor Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:
Jessica Bristow
Ms. Bristow is a Digital Organizer for CHISPA Arizona and a resident of District 4. She
fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Mayor’s Commission on Disability Issues
I recommend the following for appointment as Chair:
Nicole Anderson
Ms. Anderson will serve as Chair of the commission for a term to expire December 31,
2021.
*Mayor’s Human Trafficking Task Force
I recommend the following for appointment:
Stefanie Calens
Ms. Calens is the Board Chair of loveSTRONG Ministries and a resident of District 1.
*Phoenix Business Workforce Development Board
I recommend the following for appointment:
Page 17
Karen Carter
Ms. Carter is the Chief of Staff at Terros Health. She fills a Healthcare Business
vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
Dawna Cato
Dr. Cato is the CEO of the Arizona Nurses Association. She fills a Community Based
Organization seat for a term to expire June 30, 2022.
Adam Hawkins
Mr. Hawkins is the President of Global External Relations. He replaces Susan Ciardullo
in the Small Business category for a term to expire June 30, 2024.
I recommend the following for reappointment:
Nicholas Bielinski
Mr. Bielinski will serve his first full term to expire June 30,2024.
Latasha Causey
Ms. Causey will serve her first full term to expire June 30,2024.
Meghan McGilvra
Ms. McGilvra will be reassigned to a Labor seat for her first full term to expire June 30,
2024.
Luke Tate
Mr. Tate will be reassigned to an Education and Training seat for his first full term to
expire June 30, 2024.
Melissa Trujillo
Ms. Trujillo will be reassigned to a Workforce Representative Labor seat and will
replace James Frolov for a term to expire June 30, 2022.
Page 18
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(CONTINUED FROM MAY 5, 2021) - Liquor License - The Wine Curator
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 139287.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3818 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: R-5
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. Package
liquor sales is not a permitted use in this zoning district. This business has plans to
open in October 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was April 24, 2021. However, the
applicant has submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I will abide by all Title 4 liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I am opening a small wine shop for customers to stop in and pick up a bottle of wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Wine Curator
Liquor License Map - The Wine Curator
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: THE WINE CURATOR
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 44 17
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 43.40 70.62 84.28
Violent Crimes 7.97 8.01 8.38
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 59 49
Total Violations 97 82
Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1082003 1225 76 % 13 % 17 %
1083013 982 75 % 18 % 1%
1083021 1229 70 % 16 % 3%
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
1109011 665 96 % 10 % 13 %
1109021 2609 33 % 21 % 40 %
1109022 2224 39 % 7% 18 %
1110001 781 25 % 11 % 3%
1110002 1105 63 % 8% 19 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 22
Liquor License Map: THE WINE CURATOR
3818 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 2/25/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 23
Page 24
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 139287.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3818 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: R-5
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. Package
liquor sales is not a permitted use in this zoning district. This business has plans to
open in October 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was April 24, 2021. However, the
applicant has submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I will abide by all Title 4 liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I am opening a small wine shop for customers to stop in and pick up a bottle of wine.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Wine Curator
Liquor License Map - The Wine Curator
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: THE WINE CURATOR
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 4 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 44 17
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 43.40 70.62 84.28
Violent Crimes 7.97 8.01 8.38
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 59 49
Total Violations 97 82
Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1082003 1225 76 % 13 % 17 %
1083013 982 75 % 18 % 1%
1083021 1229 70 % 16 % 3%
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
1109011 665 96 % 10 % 13 %
1109021 2609 33 % 21 % 40 %
1109022 2224 39 % 7% 18 %
1110001 781 25 % 11 % 3%
1110002 1105 63 % 8% 19 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 22
Liquor License Map: THE WINE CURATOR
3818 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 2/25/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 23
Page 24
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Cracker Barrel #334
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148468.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
21611 N. 26th Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 25
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and services.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Cracker Barrel is a nationwide restaurant known for its home-style southern cooking
in a family-friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the
opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Cracker Barrel #334
Liquor License Map - Cracker Barrel #334
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 26
Liquor License Data: CRACKER BARREL #334
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 57.32 64.96
Violent Crimes 8.14 6.63 13.05
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 41
Total Violations 89 78
Page 27
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6145001 870 87 % 12 % 12 %
6145003 482 62 % 26 % 32 %
6146003 1301 56 % 0% 0%
6146005 1209 50 % 9% 3%
6146006 953 0% 29 % 0%
6147001 287 86 % 29 % 31 %
6147002 1049 17 % 20 % 26 %
6147003 1517 33 % 14 % 14 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 28
Liquor License Map: CRACKER BARREL #334
21611 N 26TH AVE
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 29
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148468.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
21611 N. 26th Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 25
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and services.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Cracker Barrel is a nationwide restaurant known for its home-style southern cooking
in a family-friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the
opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Cracker Barrel #334
Liquor License Map - Cracker Barrel #334
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 26
Liquor License Data: CRACKER BARREL #334
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 57.32 64.96
Violent Crimes 8.14 6.63 13.05
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 41
Total Violations 89 78
Page 27
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6145001 870 87 % 12 % 12 %
6145003 482 62 % 26 % 32 %
6146003 1301 56 % 0% 0%
6146005 1209 50 % 9% 3%
6146006 953 0% 29 % 0%
6147001 287 86 % 29 % 31 %
6147002 1049 17 % 20 % 26 %
6147003 1517 33 % 14 % 14 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 28
Liquor License Map: CRACKER BARREL #334
21611 N 26TH AVE
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 29
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Eggstasy
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150240.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2510 W. Happy Valley Road, Ste. 1248
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R PCD
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 16, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 30
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Eggstasy (Series 12)
20775 N. Pima Road, Q 100, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
6990 E. Shea Blvd., #101, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
2430 S. Gilbert Road, Ste. B1, Chandler
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
10155 E. Via Linda, Ste. H-131, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We are very responsible with our liquor service policies. Our employees go through
extensive trainings and we conduct regular audits to ensure they comply.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to serve our patrons of legal age, an adult beverage with
their meal if they choose to have one.”
Page 31
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Eggstasy
Liquor License Map - Eggstasy
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Liquor License Data: EGGSTASY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 3
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 16 15
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 35.24 109.44
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.72 4.45
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 0
Total Violations 89 0
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6119001 1639 93 % 5% 0%
6123001 2199 54 % 6% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 33
Liquor License Map: EGGSTASY
2510 W HAPPY VALLEY RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 34
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150240.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2510 W. Happy Valley Road, Ste. 1248
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R PCD
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 16, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 30
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Eggstasy (Series 12)
20775 N. Pima Road, Q 100, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
6990 E. Shea Blvd., #101, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
2430 S. Gilbert Road, Ste. B1, Chandler
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Eggstasy (Series 12)
10155 E. Via Linda, Ste. H-131, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We are very responsible with our liquor service policies. Our employees go through
extensive trainings and we conduct regular audits to ensure they comply.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We would like the ability to serve our patrons of legal age, an adult beverage with
their meal if they choose to have one.”
Page 31
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Eggstasy
Liquor License Map - Eggstasy
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Liquor License Data: EGGSTASY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 3
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 16 15
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 35.24 109.44
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.72 4.45
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 0
Total Violations 89 0
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6119001 1639 93 % 5% 0%
6123001 2199 54 % 6% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 33
Liquor License Map: EGGSTASY
2510 W HAPPY VALLEY RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 34
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - The Spice Sea
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150093.
Summary
Applicant
Yong Huang, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3345 W. Greenway Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 35
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Lychee Kitchen (Series 12)
23450 N. 19th Ave., Ste. 103, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 10
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliabilty and qualifications to hold a liquor license because I
have been in restaurant management for 20 years and I have completed all liquor
training course.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Spice Sea is a great new seafood boiler restaurant that is family and budget
friendly it will be a great addition to the neighborhood.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Spice Sea
Liquor License Map - The Spice Sea
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 36
Liquor License Data: THE SPICE SEA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 61.75 90.23
Violent Crimes 8.14 8.99 12.73
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 112
Total Violations 89 146
Page 37
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1041001 1290 40 % 21 % 11 %
1041004 1847 89 % 14 % 9%
1042022 2649 87 % 0% 15 %
1042072 1463 95 % 11 % 5%
1042073 1396 8% 4% 34 %
1042263 658 27 % 17 % 37 %
1042264 1538 92 % 7% 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 38
Liquor License Map: THE SPICE SEA
3345 W GREENWAY RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 39
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150093.
Summary
Applicant
Yong Huang, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3345 W. Greenway Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 35
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Lychee Kitchen (Series 12)
23450 N. 19th Ave., Ste. 103, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 10
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliabilty and qualifications to hold a liquor license because I
have been in restaurant management for 20 years and I have completed all liquor
training course.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The Spice Sea is a great new seafood boiler restaurant that is family and budget
friendly it will be a great addition to the neighborhood.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Spice Sea
Liquor License Map - The Spice Sea
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 36
Liquor License Data: THE SPICE SEA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 61.75 90.23
Violent Crimes 8.14 8.99 12.73
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 112
Total Violations 89 146
Page 37
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1041001 1290 40 % 21 % 11 %
1041004 1847 89 % 14 % 9%
1042022 2649 87 % 0% 15 %
1042072 1463 95 % 11 % 5%
1042073 1396 8% 4% 34 %
1042263 658 27 % 17 % 37 %
1042264 1538 92 % 7% 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 38
Liquor License Map: THE SPICE SEA
3345 W GREENWAY RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 39
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Cobblestone Auto Spa & Market
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 10076532.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
29650 N. Tatum Blvd.
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a
convenience store that sells gas. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interest held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 40
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We operate multiple Cobblestones throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Title 4 liquor laws and ensure our employees have the proper training.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 41
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 10076532.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
29650 N. Tatum Blvd.
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a
convenience store that sells gas. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interest held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 40
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We operate multiple Cobblestones throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Title 4 liquor laws and ensure our employees have the proper training.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 41
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Cobblestone Auto Spa & Market
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 10073729.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3739 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a
convenience store that sells gas. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 42
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We operate multiple Cobblestones throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Title 4 liquor laws and ensure our employees have the proper training.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 43
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 10073729.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
3739 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a
convenience store that sells gas. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 42
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We operate multiple Cobblestones throughout the valley. We will continue to abide by
Title 4 liquor laws and ensure our employees have the proper training.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 43
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Sushi Crush
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 135267.
Summary
Applicant
Aejin Ham, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy., Ste. 123
Zoning Classification: PSC PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 10, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 44
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have previously held and responsibly ran a prestigious job with no issues for the past
20 years. In conjunction with that, started and successfuly ran a commercial property
business with great respect in the community and maintained clean background as a
leader.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We have a passion for serving others and influencing loyal community bonds and
business. We have a very family oriented business, and the business will be ran the
way as well.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sushi Crush
Liquor License Map - Sushi Crush
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 45
Liquor License Data: SUSHI CRUSH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 5
Restaurant 12 20 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 21.04 30.67
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.35 1.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 9
Total Violations 89 14
Page 46
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032141 1011 91 % 8% 3%
1032142 1878 91 % 9% 3%
1032172 1618 82 % 9% 11 %
1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %
1032192 1054 84 % 16 % 2%
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
1032203 1161 0% 16 % 7%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 47
Liquor License Map: SUSHI CRUSH
6501 E GREENWAY PKWY
Ü
Date: 5/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 48
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 135267.
Summary
Applicant
Aejin Ham, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
6501 E. Greenway Pkwy., Ste. 123
Zoning Classification: PSC PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business is
currently being remodeled with plans to open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 10, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 44
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have previously held and responsibly ran a prestigious job with no issues for the past
20 years. In conjunction with that, started and successfuly ran a commercial property
business with great respect in the community and maintained clean background as a
leader.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We have a passion for serving others and influencing loyal community bonds and
business. We have a very family oriented business, and the business will be ran the
way as well.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sushi Crush
Liquor License Map - Sushi Crush
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 45
Liquor License Data: SUSHI CRUSH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 5
Restaurant 12 20 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 21.04 30.67
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.35 1.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 9
Total Violations 89 14
Page 46
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032141 1011 91 % 8% 3%
1032142 1878 91 % 9% 3%
1032172 1618 82 % 9% 11 %
1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %
1032192 1054 84 % 16 % 2%
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
1032203 1161 0% 16 % 7%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 47
Liquor License Map: SUSHI CRUSH
6501 E GREENWAY PKWY
Ü
Date: 5/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 48
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Thunderbird Bar & Grill
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149877.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
13802 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to
a restaurant and to allow outdoor dining and alcohol consumption as an accessory use
to a restaurant. This business has plans to open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 10, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 49
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Have worked in the restaurant industry for several years. Have attended both the
Basic and Management Title 4 liquor law training.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Would like to offer our patrons the option to have an adult beverage.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Thunderbird Bar & Grill
Liquor License Map - Thunderbird Bar & Grill
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: THUNDERBIRD BAR & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 22 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 13.80 19.10
Violent Crimes 8.14 0.76 0.95
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 29
Total Violations 89 36
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032071 1171 81 % 2% 3%
1032072 1401 93 % 2% 0%
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 51
Liquor License Map: THUNDERBIRD BAR & GRILL
13802 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Ü
Date: 5/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 52
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149877.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
13802 N. Scottsdale Road, Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages as an accessory use to
a restaurant and to allow outdoor dining and alcohol consumption as an accessory use
to a restaurant. This business has plans to open in July 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 10, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 49
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Have worked in the restaurant industry for several years. Have attended both the
Basic and Management Title 4 liquor law training.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Would like to offer our patrons the option to have an adult beverage.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Thunderbird Bar & Grill
Liquor License Map - Thunderbird Bar & Grill
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 50
Liquor License Data: THUNDERBIRD BAR & GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1
Restaurant 12 22 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 13.80 19.10
Violent Crimes 8.14 0.76 0.95
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 29
Total Violations 89 36
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032071 1171 81 % 2% 3%
1032072 1401 93 % 2% 0%
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 51
Liquor License Map: THUNDERBIRD BAR & GRILL
13802 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Ü
Date: 5/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 52
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REVISED ITEM (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Liquor License - Tacos & Tequilas
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150120.
Summary
Applicant
Daniel Rowan, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
13216 N. 7th St., Ste. 4
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business has plans
to open in August 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 53
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Tacos & Tequilas (Series 12)
19401 N. Cave Creek Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 39
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I already operate with a liquor license for the past 4 years.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I have over 20 years experience in food and liquor management.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommends regarding this application pending the completion of
departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos & Tequilas
Liquor License Map - Tacos & Tequilas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 54
Liquor License Data: TACOS & TEQUILAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 1 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 3
Restaurant 12 6 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 22.29 47.23
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.69 4.14
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 8
Total Violations 89 11
Page 55
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036052 2124 92 % 0% 3%
1036053 797 92 % 20 % 1%
1036113 2247 95 % 0% 1%
1036142 1037 91 % 4% 2%
1036151 906 52 % 16 % 12 %
1037012 1871 58 % 17 % 5%
1037023 1050 23 % 4% 11 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 56
Liquor License Map: TACOS & TEQUILAS
13216 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 57
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150120.
Summary
Applicant
Daniel Rowan, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
13216 N. 7th St., Ste. 4
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business has plans
to open in August 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 53
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Tacos & Tequilas (Series 12)
19401 N. Cave Creek Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 39
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I already operate with a liquor license for the past 4 years.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I have over 20 years experience in food and liquor management.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommends regarding this application pending the completion of
departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos & Tequilas
Liquor License Map - Tacos & Tequilas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 54
Liquor License Data: TACOS & TEQUILAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 1 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 3
Restaurant 12 6 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 22.29 47.23
Violent Crimes 8.14 1.69 4.14
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 8
Total Violations 89 11
Page 55
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036052 2124 92 % 0% 3%
1036053 797 92 % 20 % 1%
1036113 2247 95 % 0% 1%
1036142 1037 91 % 4% 2%
1036151 906 52 % 16 % 12 %
1037012 1871 58 % 17 % 5%
1037023 1050 23 % 4% 11 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 56
Liquor License Map: TACOS & TEQUILAS
13216 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 57
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070546.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2302 N. 12th St.
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP CNSPD
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a liquor store. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 17, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 58
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The new owners of Sunshine Market have been successful business owners in
Phoenix for some time. They look forward to adding Sunshine Market to list of
successful businesses. They have hired a qualified manager trained in Arizona Liquor
Laws. They will also make sure that their employees are trained as well.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This small grocery store remains an essential stop for residents and has been part of
the fabric in the historic Conronado neighborhood. This store has been operational
since the 1930's. The new owners are confident that Sunshine Market will continue to
be a valuable member of Coronado neighborhood and community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sunshine Market
Liquor License Map - Sunshine Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 59
Liquor License Data: SUNSHINE MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 11 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 0
Restaurant 12 16 6
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 110.03 60.82
Violent Crimes 8.14 23.11 8.06
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 93
Total Violations 89 125
Page 60
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%
1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %
1117002 1243 39 % 12 % 28 %
1117003 1057 64 % 2% 10 %
1117004 1227 75 % 20 % 21 %
1118001 742 44 % 28 % 5%
1118004 671 62 % 6% 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 61
Liquor License Map: SUNSHINE MARKET
2302 N 12TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 62
Report
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2302 N. 12th St.
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP CNSPD
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a liquor store. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 17, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 58
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The new owners of Sunshine Market have been successful business owners in
Phoenix for some time. They look forward to adding Sunshine Market to list of
successful businesses. They have hired a qualified manager trained in Arizona Liquor
Laws. They will also make sure that their employees are trained as well.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This small grocery store remains an essential stop for residents and has been part of
the fabric in the historic Conronado neighborhood. This store has been operational
since the 1930's. The new owners are confident that Sunshine Market will continue to
be a valuable member of Coronado neighborhood and community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Sunshine Market
Liquor License Map - Sunshine Market
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 59
Liquor License Data: SUNSHINE MARKET
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 11 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 12 0
Restaurant 12 16 6
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 110.03 60.82
Violent Crimes 8.14 23.11 8.06
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 93
Total Violations 89 125
Page 60
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%
1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %
1117002 1243 39 % 12 % 28 %
1117003 1057 64 % 2% 10 %
1117004 1227 75 % 20 % 21 %
1118001 742 44 % 28 % 5%
1118004 671 62 % 6% 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 61
Liquor License Map: SUNSHINE MARKET
2302 N 12TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 62
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Hermandad del Senor de los Milagros (Mesa,
AZ)
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Sofia Diaz
Location
7610 W. Indian School Road
Council District: 5
Function
Cultural Celebration
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 22, 2021 - 7 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. / 150 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 63
Report
AZ)
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Sofia Diaz
Location
7610 W. Indian School Road
Council District: 5
Function
Cultural Celebration
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Oct. 22, 2021 - 7 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. / 150 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 63
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Tacos Mexicali De Baja
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150273.
Summary
Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7730 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 16, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 64
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owner of Tacos Mexicali de Baja is committed to upholding the highest standards
for it's business practices & employees. Mr. Palomino will be trained along with all
employees in the techniques of legal & responsibility and has taken the Title 4 liquor
law training course. As owner of the business Mr. Palomino will manage all employees
& will provide a safe experience for the staff and the public at all times.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Mr. Palomino wishes to provide on-sale privileges of beer to the general public. Tacos
Mexicali de Baja will responsibly adhere to all state and federal tax laws and maintain
a strict adherence to the security requirements of the city and state agencies.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos Mexicali De Baja
Liquor License Map - Tacos Mexicali De Baja
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 65
Liquor License Data: TACOS MEXICALI DE BAJA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 117.78 115.71
Violent Crimes 8.14 28.42 27.91
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 412
Total Violations 89 679
Page 66
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1096012 1021 34 % 18 % 34 %
1096013 2174 69 % 19 % 21 %
1096021 1392 71 % 14 % 35 %
1096023 1946 79 % 0% 22 %
1096031 852 79 % 11 % 3%
1096032 1211 75 % 15 % 23 %
1096034 1269 66 % 0% 17 %
1097021 1552 88 % 22 % 35 %
1097032 1653 33 % 12 % 31 %
1097041 1602 68 % 5% 35 %
1097042 784 71 % 19 % 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 67
Liquor License Map: TACOS MEXICALI DE BAJA
7730 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 68
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150273.
Summary
Applicant
Juanita Esparza, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
7730 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 16, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 64
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“The owner of Tacos Mexicali de Baja is committed to upholding the highest standards
for it's business practices & employees. Mr. Palomino will be trained along with all
employees in the techniques of legal & responsibility and has taken the Title 4 liquor
law training course. As owner of the business Mr. Palomino will manage all employees
& will provide a safe experience for the staff and the public at all times.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Mr. Palomino wishes to provide on-sale privileges of beer to the general public. Tacos
Mexicali de Baja will responsibly adhere to all state and federal tax laws and maintain
a strict adherence to the security requirements of the city and state agencies.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos Mexicali De Baja
Liquor License Map - Tacos Mexicali De Baja
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 65
Liquor License Data: TACOS MEXICALI DE BAJA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 117.78 115.71
Violent Crimes 8.14 28.42 27.91
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 412
Total Violations 89 679
Page 66
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1096012 1021 34 % 18 % 34 %
1096013 2174 69 % 19 % 21 %
1096021 1392 71 % 14 % 35 %
1096023 1946 79 % 0% 22 %
1096031 852 79 % 11 % 3%
1096032 1211 75 % 15 % 23 %
1096034 1269 66 % 0% 17 %
1097021 1552 88 % 22 % 35 %
1097032 1653 33 % 12 % 31 %
1097041 1602 68 % 5% 35 %
1097042 784 71 % 19 % 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 67
Liquor License Map: TACOS MEXICALI DE BAJA
7730 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 5/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 68
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 140382.
Summary
Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3115 E. Lincoln Drive
Zoning Classification: C-1 PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 69
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to be an agent on this liquor license
because I currently serve as the agent on more than 100 liquor licenses in Arizona, all
of which are in compliance. I have been trained and have attended both basic and
management classes numerous times in the state of Arizona, and am very familiar with
the Title 4 laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because it is
convenient to allow people to eat and drink alcoholic beverages in one location so that
they do not have to travel to two different places for food and alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, the requested license will allow the new owners to operate an existing
restaurant, which had its own Series 12 liquor license. It is in the best interest of the
community to allow the restaurant to continue operating with a Series 12 license to
promote a seamless transition between owners.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Base Pizza
Liquor License Map - Base Pizza
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 70
Liquor License Data: BASE PIZZERIA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Restaurant 12 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 6.23 8.17
Violent Crimes 8.14 0.15 0.42
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 0
Total Violations 88 0
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051021 746 94 % 7% 0%
1051033 1364 100 % 22 % 0%
1078001 542 96 % 53 % 2%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 71
Liquor License Map: BASE PIZZERIA
3115 E LINCOLN DR
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 72
Report
Summary
Applicant
Perry Huellmantel, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3115 E. Lincoln Drive
Zoning Classification: C-1 PCD
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 69
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to be an agent on this liquor license
because I currently serve as the agent on more than 100 liquor licenses in Arizona, all
of which are in compliance. I have been trained and have attended both basic and
management classes numerous times in the state of Arizona, and am very familiar with
the Title 4 laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the requested liquor license because it is
convenient to allow people to eat and drink alcoholic beverages in one location so that
they do not have to travel to two different places for food and alcoholic beverages.
Additionally, the requested license will allow the new owners to operate an existing
restaurant, which had its own Series 12 liquor license. It is in the best interest of the
community to allow the restaurant to continue operating with a Series 12 license to
promote a seamless transition between owners.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Base Pizza
Liquor License Map - Base Pizza
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 70
Liquor License Data: BASE PIZZERIA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Restaurant 12 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 6.23 8.17
Violent Crimes 8.14 0.15 0.42
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 0
Total Violations 88 0
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051021 746 94 % 7% 0%
1051033 1364 100 % 22 % 0%
1078001 542 96 % 53 % 2%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 71
Liquor License Map: BASE PIZZERIA
3115 E LINCOLN DR
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 72
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Cracker Barrel #335
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148470.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5022 E. Chandler Blvd.
Zoning Classification: CP/GCP
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 73
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Cracker Barrel is a nationwide restaurant known for its home-style southern cooking
in a family-friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the
opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Cracker Barrel #335
Liquor License Map - Cracker Barrel #335
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 74
Liquor License Data: CRACKER BARREL #335
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Restaurant 12 19 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 31.76 40.12
Violent Crimes 8.14 3.92 6.26
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 5
Total Violations 89 9
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167121 2721 19 % 15 % 9%
1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%
1167192 1023 3% 7% 22 %
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
9804001 13 0% 0% 82 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: CRACKER BARREL #335
5022 E CHANDLER BLVD
Ü
Date: 5/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 148470.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
5022 E. Chandler Blvd.
Zoning Classification: CP/GCP
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 13, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 73
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Cracker Barrel is a nationwide restaurant known for its home-style southern cooking
in a family-friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the
opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Cracker Barrel #335
Liquor License Map - Cracker Barrel #335
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 74
Liquor License Data: CRACKER BARREL #335
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 2 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Restaurant 12 19 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 31.76 40.12
Violent Crimes 8.14 3.92 6.26
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 5
Total Violations 89 9
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167121 2721 19 % 15 % 9%
1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%
1167192 1023 3% 7% 22 %
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
9804001 13 0% 0% 82 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: CRACKER BARREL #335
5022 E CHANDLER BLVD
Ü
Date: 5/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Maryland Deli & Liquor
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070475.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6502 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a convenience store
that sells gas. This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently
operate with an interim permit. A use permit is required to allow drive-through windows
for the sale of alcohol at this location.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 19, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 77
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We are a family owned and operated business and we have been in the retail
business since 1993. We have 2 locations in Montana and 9 in Arizona. We are
experienced operators of 11 successful businesses and look forward to adding this
additional Phoenix location.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We understand the needs of the our customers and aim to create a great experience
for our shoppers. We aim to keep our premises clean and our prices competitive. We
offer fresh food, snacks, cold drinks, and much more. This location has been open
since 1977 and we wish to continue to provide this valuable service to our
neighborhood.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Maryland Deli & Liquor
Liquor License Map - Maryland Deli & Liquor
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: MARYLAND DELI & LIQUOR
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 19 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 57.77 60.40
Violent Crimes 8.14 5.73 5.41
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 48
Total Violations 91 67
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1062002 1751 97 % 6% 1%
1063004 1060 59 % 22 % 20 %
1065011 1458 63 % 8% 10 %
1065012 1594 61 % 18 % 32 %
1066001 1444 82 % 29 % 4%
1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: MARYLAND DELI & LIQUOR
6502 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 4/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070475.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6502 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a convenience store
that sells gas. This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently
operate with an interim permit. A use permit is required to allow drive-through windows
for the sale of alcohol at this location.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 19, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 77
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We are a family owned and operated business and we have been in the retail
business since 1993. We have 2 locations in Montana and 9 in Arizona. We are
experienced operators of 11 successful businesses and look forward to adding this
additional Phoenix location.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We understand the needs of the our customers and aim to create a great experience
for our shoppers. We aim to keep our premises clean and our prices competitive. We
offer fresh food, snacks, cold drinks, and much more. This location has been open
since 1977 and we wish to continue to provide this valuable service to our
neighborhood.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Maryland Deli & Liquor
Liquor License Map - Maryland Deli & Liquor
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: MARYLAND DELI & LIQUOR
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 19 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 57.77 60.40
Violent Crimes 8.14 5.73 5.41
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 48
Total Violations 91 67
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1062002 1751 97 % 6% 1%
1063004 1060 59 % 22 % 20 %
1065011 1458 63 % 8% 10 %
1065012 1594 61 % 18 % 32 %
1066001 1444 82 % 29 % 4%
1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: MARYLAND DELI & LIQUOR
6502 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 4/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Grille
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150975.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
5816 N. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a bar. This location is currently licensed for
liquor sales with a Series 12, Restaurant, liquor license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 82
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Phoenix City Grille (Series 12)
5816 N. 16th St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 6
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
At this time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Phoenix City Grille has been a neighborhood favorite for 24 years. Known for its
delicious food and family-friendly atmosphere, the restaurant will continue serving
fresh, innovative dishes by long-time dependable staff. There will be no changes to the
restaurant's operations.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Phoenix City Grille
Liquor License Map - Phoenix City Grille
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 83
Liquor License Data: PHOENIX CITY GRILLE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 26 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 85.85 68.47
Violent Crimes 8.14 9.20 9.23
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 39
Total Violations 88 56
Page 84
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1064001 715 84 % 23 % 9%
1064002 2049 31 % 16 % 9%
1065021 1383 30 % 18 % 43 %
1065023 919 56 % 15 % 10 %
1076012 904 38 % 24 % 23 %
1076021 1311 82 % 0% 6%
1076022 1734 54 % 18 % 3%
1077001 1222 100 % 2% 3%
1077002 738 57 % 10 % 8%
1077003 457 26 % 26 % 16 %
1077004 526 77 % 27 % 21 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: PHOENIX CITY GRILLE
5816 N 16TH ST
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150975.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
5816 N. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a bar. This location is currently licensed for
liquor sales with a Series 12, Restaurant, liquor license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 82
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Phoenix City Grille (Series 12)
5816 N. 16th St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 6
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
At this time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Phoenix City Grille has been a neighborhood favorite for 24 years. Known for its
delicious food and family-friendly atmosphere, the restaurant will continue serving
fresh, innovative dishes by long-time dependable staff. There will be no changes to the
restaurant's operations.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Phoenix City Grille
Liquor License Map - Phoenix City Grille
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 83
Liquor License Data: PHOENIX CITY GRILLE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 26 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 85.85 68.47
Violent Crimes 8.14 9.20 9.23
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 39
Total Violations 88 56
Page 84
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1064001 715 84 % 23 % 9%
1064002 2049 31 % 16 % 9%
1065021 1383 30 % 18 % 43 %
1065023 919 56 % 15 % 10 %
1076012 904 38 % 24 % 23 %
1076021 1311 82 % 0% 6%
1076022 1734 54 % 18 % 3%
1077001 1222 100 % 2% 3%
1077002 738 57 % 10 % 8%
1077003 457 26 % 26 % 16 %
1077004 526 77 % 27 % 21 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: PHOENIX CITY GRILLE
5816 N 16TH ST
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070199.
Summary
Applicant
John Dolan, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4017 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 12, Restaurant, liquor
license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 87
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Local Edition Gilbert (Series 12)
312 N. Gilbert Road, Gilbert
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Porch (Series 12)
1128 E. Baseline Road, Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Porch (Series 12)
4017 E. Indian School Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 15
Liquor license violations: In October 2020, a fine of $2,000 was paid for failure to
derive 40 percent of income from food.
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am the current agent the Series 12 license at this location and we seek to replace
the Series 12 license with a Series 6 license. I am familiar with liquor laws and have
experience operating this establishment since 2017. I also serve as the agent on two
other licenses in the Valley.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This request for a Series 6 License is for a business I currently operate at this location
with a Series 12 License. As was true with our request for a Series 12 License, the
public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
Page 88
substantially served by the issuance of this liquor license because it is a neighborhood
restaurant that provides food and alcohol options in a convenient location for the
surrounding area.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Porch
Liquor License Map - Porch
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 89
Liquor License Data: PORCH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 3 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 5
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 40 26
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 71.78 69.42
Violent Crimes 8.14 7.80 5.41
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 27
Total Violations 88 36
Page 90
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1082002 1178 45 % 8% 8%
1082003 1225 76 % 13 % 17 %
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
1109021 2609 33 % 21 % 40 %
1109022 2224 39 % 7% 18 %
1110001 781 25 % 11 % 3%
1110002 1105 63 % 8% 19 %
1110003 1587 64 % 17 % 24 %
1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 91
Liquor License Map: PORCH
4017 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 92
Report
Summary
Applicant
John Dolan, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4017 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location is currently licensed for liquor sales with a Series 12, Restaurant, liquor
license.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 87
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Local Edition Gilbert (Series 12)
312 N. Gilbert Road, Gilbert
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Porch (Series 12)
1128 E. Baseline Road, Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Porch (Series 12)
4017 E. Indian School Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 15
Liquor license violations: In October 2020, a fine of $2,000 was paid for failure to
derive 40 percent of income from food.
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am the current agent the Series 12 license at this location and we seek to replace
the Series 12 license with a Series 6 license. I am familiar with liquor laws and have
experience operating this establishment since 2017. I also serve as the agent on two
other licenses in the Valley.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This request for a Series 6 License is for a business I currently operate at this location
with a Series 12 License. As was true with our request for a Series 12 License, the
public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
Page 88
substantially served by the issuance of this liquor license because it is a neighborhood
restaurant that provides food and alcohol options in a convenient location for the
surrounding area.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Porch
Liquor License Map - Porch
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 89
Liquor License Data: PORCH
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 3 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 5
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 40 26
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 71.78 69.42
Violent Crimes 8.14 7.80 5.41
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 27
Total Violations 88 36
Page 90
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1082002 1178 45 % 8% 8%
1082003 1225 76 % 13 % 17 %
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
1109021 2609 33 % 21 % 40 %
1109022 2224 39 % 7% 18 %
1110001 781 25 % 11 % 3%
1110002 1105 63 % 8% 19 %
1110003 1587 64 % 17 % 24 %
1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 91
Liquor License Map: PORCH
4017 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 92
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Mixx
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150519.
Summary
Applicant
Alejandro Posada, Agent
License Type
Series 1 - In-State Producer
Location
1635 S. 43rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a producer. This location was not previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 19, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 93
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Under my 28 - year leadership as CEO, Chief Scientific Officer and founder of Bang
Energy, we have surpassed $3.2 billion in retail sales in the past 3 years. We have
expanded distribution, storage and manufacturing of alcohol nationwide in many
states. Our company has the knowledge, dedication, and leadership required to
effectively create the best quality alcoholic beverages available. In fact, my team and I
have created a novel patent pending alcohol product that is infused with electrolytes
which may be the most innovative/best tasting offering in its genre.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 94
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150519.
Summary
Applicant
Alejandro Posada, Agent
License Type
Series 1 - In-State Producer
Location
1635 S. 43rd Ave.
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a producer. This location was not previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 19, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
Page 93
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Under my 28 - year leadership as CEO, Chief Scientific Officer and founder of Bang
Energy, we have surpassed $3.2 billion in retail sales in the past 3 years. We have
expanded distribution, storage and manufacturing of alcohol nationwide in many
states. Our company has the knowledge, dedication, and leadership required to
effectively create the best quality alcoholic beverages available. In fact, my team and I
have created a novel patent pending alcohol product that is infused with electrolytes
which may be the most innovative/best tasting offering in its genre.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 94
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Mixx
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149356.
Summary
Applicant
Alejandro Posada, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
4747 W. Buckeye Road
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 16, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
Page 95
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Under my 28-year leadership as CEO, Chief Scientific Officer and founder of Bang
Energy, we have surpassed $3.2 billion in retail sales in the past 3 years. We have
expanded distribution, storage and manufacturing of alcohol nationwide in many
states. Our company has the knowledge, dedication, and leadership required to
effectively create the best quality alcoholic beverages available. In fact, my team and I
have created a novel patent pending alcohol product that is infused with electrolytes
which may be the most innovative/best tasting offering in its genre.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 96
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149356.
Summary
Applicant
Alejandro Posada, Agent
License Type
Series 4 - Wholesaler
Location
4747 W. Buckeye Road
Zoning Classification: A-1
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a wholesaler. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was June 16, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
Page 95
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Under my 28-year leadership as CEO, Chief Scientific Officer and founder of Bang
Energy, we have surpassed $3.2 billion in retail sales in the past 3 years. We have
expanded distribution, storage and manufacturing of alcohol nationwide in many
states. Our company has the knowledge, dedication, and leadership required to
effectively create the best quality alcoholic beverages available. In fact, my team and I
have created a novel patent pending alcohol product that is infused with electrolytes
which may be the most innovative/best tasting offering in its genre.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 96
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Famous Fried Chicken
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149400.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
345 W. Van Buren St., Ste. C
Zoning Classification: DTC - Van Buren HP
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 97
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken (Series 12)
212 W. Main St., Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken plans to open its second location in Arizona in
downtown Phoenix. Famous for its fried chicken since 1953, the company now has
more than 30 locations across the U.S. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over
the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they
enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken
Liquor License Map - Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 98
Liquor License Data: GUS'S WORLD FAMOUS FRIED
CHICKEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 2
Bar 6 43 24
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 7
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3
Hotel 11 7 3
Restaurant 12 78 28
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 151.14 219.85
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.47 65.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 92
Total Violations 89 176
Page 99
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 100
Liquor License Map: GUS'S WORLD FAMOUS FRIED CHICKEN
345 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 5/27/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 101
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 149400.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
345 W. Van Buren St., Ste. C
Zoning Classification: DTC - Van Buren HP
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 23, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
Page 97
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken (Series 12)
212 W. Main St., Mesa
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken plans to open its second location in Arizona in
downtown Phoenix. Famous for its fried chicken since 1953, the company now has
more than 30 locations across the U.S. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over
the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they
enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken
Liquor License Map - Gus's World Famous Fried Chicken
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 98
Liquor License Data: GUS'S WORLD FAMOUS FRIED
CHICKEN
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 2
Bar 6 43 24
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 7
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3
Hotel 11 7 3
Restaurant 12 78 28
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 151.14 219.85
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.47 65.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 92
Total Violations 89 176
Page 99
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 100
Liquor License Map: GUS'S WORLD FAMOUS FRIED CHICKEN
345 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 5/27/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 101
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 151024.
Summary
Applicant
Danielle Middlebrook, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
111 W. Monroe St., Ste. 121
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 102
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Hidden Track Bottle Shop (Series 1)
5070 N. Central Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Liquor license violations: None
Hidden Track Bottle Shop (Series 10)
111 W. Monroe St., Ste. 120, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 34
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a current liquor license holder in good standing. I am well versed on AZ liquor
laws, including the requirements of a series 12, and have held a liquor license for over
five years with zero infractions.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Hidden Track Cafe has been a staple of our downtown Phoenix community for over
four years. Granting this liquor license will allow us to share the global wines available
to us with our community while educating them on wine varieties, regions, and wine
making practices.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Page 103
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Hidden Track Cafe
Liquor License Map - Hidden Track Cafe
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 104
Liquor License Data: HIDDEN TRACK CAFE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 2
Bar 6 41 27
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 6
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 78 38
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 150.98 225.37
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.84 60.61
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 43
Total Violations 88 83
Page 105
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 106
Liquor License Map: HIDDEN TRACK CAFE
111 W MONROE ST
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 107
Report
Summary
Applicant
Danielle Middlebrook, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
111 W. Monroe St., Ste. 121
Zoning Classification: DTC-Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
Page 102
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Hidden Track Bottle Shop (Series 1)
5070 N. Central Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 1
Liquor license violations: None
Hidden Track Bottle Shop (Series 10)
111 W. Monroe St., Ste. 120, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 34
Liquor license violations: None
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am a current liquor license holder in good standing. I am well versed on AZ liquor
laws, including the requirements of a series 12, and have held a liquor license for over
five years with zero infractions.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Hidden Track Cafe has been a staple of our downtown Phoenix community for over
four years. Granting this liquor license will allow us to share the global wines available
to us with our community while educating them on wine varieties, regions, and wine
making practices.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Page 103
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Hidden Track Cafe
Liquor License Map - Hidden Track Cafe
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 104
Liquor License Data: HIDDEN TRACK CAFE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 2
Bar 6 41 27
Beer and Wine Bar 7 13 6
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 78 38
Club 14 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 150.98 225.37
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.84 60.61
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 43
Total Violations 88 83
Page 105
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1129002 815 37 % 22 % 24 %
1129003 1372 4% 18 % 40 %
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 106
Liquor License Map: HIDDEN TRACK CAFE
111 W MONROE ST
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 107
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150765.
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2 N. Central Ave., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: DTC - Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in September 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 108
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Wren and Wolf will open at Renaissance Square downtown with a menu featuring
American classics with a gourmet twist. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and
over the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they
enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Wren and Wolf
Liquor License Map - Wren and Wolf
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 109
Liquor License Data: WREN AND WOLF
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 3
Bar 6 41 28
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 6
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 2
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 75 34
Club 14 3 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 151.64 207.11
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.68 55.30
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 28
Total Violations 88 43
Page 110
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 111
Liquor License Map: WREN AND WOLF
2 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 112
Report
Summary
Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
2 N. Central Ave., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: DTC - Business Core
Council District: 7
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in September 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 27, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 108
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Wren and Wolf will open at Renaissance Square downtown with a menu featuring
American classics with a gourmet twist. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and
over the opportunity to purchase alcoholic beverages as an incident to the meals they
enjoy.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Wren and Wolf
Liquor License Map - Wren and Wolf
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 109
Liquor License Data: WREN AND WOLF
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 3
Bar 6 41 28
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 6
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 2
Hotel 11 7 5
Restaurant 12 75 34
Club 14 3 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 151.64 207.11
Violent Crimes 8.14 46.68 55.30
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 28
Total Violations 88 43
Page 110
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
1142001 1321 36 % 22 % 50 %
1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 111
Liquor License Map: WREN AND WOLF
2 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 6/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 112
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Bodega
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150936.
Summary
Applicant
Jacqueline Garay, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1002 E. Pierce St., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in August 2021. This location requires a use permit to allow
packaged liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 113
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am an upstanding resident of the community in which the license will operate, my
chief concern is improving and empowering my own community. Additionally, combined
with my ownership team, I have the requisite experience and history working within the
guidelines of legal liquor sales and thus am well versed in running a professional, safe,
and compliant operation. I have been a successful employee or contractor for any job I
have ever had and maintain strong relationships with past employers, indicating a
record of professionalism.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The community within downtown is growing at an exponential rate, and thus requires
more establishments that provides basic homewares and food provisions for residents.
The liquor license will be an additional component that will help the business grow its
revenues in order to thrive and thus create a meaningful impact on the surrounding
community by providing adequate nourishment and food goods. Lastly, the expected
monetary successes that are afforded by the use of the Series 10 Liquor License will
help us create jobs.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Buena Vida Bodega
Liquor License Map - Buena Vida Bodega
Page 114
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 115
Liquor License Data: BUENA VIDA BODEGA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 0
Bar 6 31 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 1
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5
Hotel 11 6 1
Restaurant 12 68 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 166.26 135.77
Violent Crimes 8.14 39.35 27.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 207
Total Violations 88 369
Page 116
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130002 873 29 % 21 % 38 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1132011 1312 29 % 26 % 48 %
1132012 962 50 % 23 % 44 %
1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %
1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1140001 1831 25 % 20 % 47 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 117
Liquor License Map: BUENA VIDA BODEGA
1002 E PIERCE ST
Ü
Date: 6/8/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 118
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150936.
Summary
Applicant
Jacqueline Garay, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1002 E. Pierce St., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-1 HP
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine store. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
has plans to open in August 2021. This location requires a use permit to allow
packaged liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 26, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 113
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
At the time this agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received,
however the 20-day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am an upstanding resident of the community in which the license will operate, my
chief concern is improving and empowering my own community. Additionally, combined
with my ownership team, I have the requisite experience and history working within the
guidelines of legal liquor sales and thus am well versed in running a professional, safe,
and compliant operation. I have been a successful employee or contractor for any job I
have ever had and maintain strong relationships with past employers, indicating a
record of professionalism.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The community within downtown is growing at an exponential rate, and thus requires
more establishments that provides basic homewares and food provisions for residents.
The liquor license will be an additional component that will help the business grow its
revenues in order to thrive and thus create a meaningful impact on the surrounding
community by providing adequate nourishment and food goods. Lastly, the expected
monetary successes that are afforded by the use of the Series 10 Liquor License will
help us create jobs.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Buena Vida Bodega
Liquor License Map - Buena Vida Bodega
Page 114
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 115
Liquor License Data: BUENA VIDA BODEGA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 7 0
Bar 6 31 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 1
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 5
Hotel 11 6 1
Restaurant 12 68 11
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 166.26 135.77
Violent Crimes 8.14 39.35 27.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 207
Total Violations 88 369
Page 116
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130002 873 29 % 21 % 38 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1132011 1312 29 % 26 % 48 %
1132012 962 50 % 23 % 44 %
1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %
1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1140001 1831 25 % 20 % 47 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 117
Liquor License Map: BUENA VIDA BODEGA
1002 E PIERCE ST
Ü
Date: 6/8/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 118
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Safe Haven Brewery
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150493.
Summary
Applicant
Gus Fowler, Agent
License Type
Series 3 - Microbrewery
Location
915 N. 4th St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - East Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a microbrewery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow a brewery, outdoor alcoholic beverage consumption and
live entertainment. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to open in
October 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 19, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 119
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant's members have significant experience brewing and operating a brew pub,
we will follow all Arizona Liquor Laws and regulations. We will also ensure proper
training of managers and staff are same.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is the applicant's first location. It compliments the other establishments currently
operating in Downtown Phoenix. It will provide an additional craft beer option and
brewery experience to the surrounding community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Safe Haven Brewery
Liquor License Map - Safe Haven Brewery
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 120
Liquor License Data: SAFE HAVEN BREWERY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 3
Bar 6 41 11
Beer and Wine Bar 7 15 7
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Hotel 11 7 4
Restaurant 12 90 36
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 170.59 193.41
Violent Crimes 8.14 39.78 43.31
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 54 114
Total Violations 88 196
Page 121
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 1218 23 % 16 % 11 %
1130002 873 29 % 21 % 38 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %
1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 122
Liquor License Map: SAFE HAVEN BREWERY
915 N 4TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/24/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 123
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 150493.
Summary
Applicant
Gus Fowler, Agent
License Type
Series 3 - Microbrewery
Location
915 N. 4th St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - East Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a microbrewery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow a brewery, outdoor alcoholic beverage consumption and
live entertainment. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to open in
October 2021.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is July 19, 2021.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 119
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant's members have significant experience brewing and operating a brew pub,
we will follow all Arizona Liquor Laws and regulations. We will also ensure proper
training of managers and staff are same.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is the applicant's first location. It compliments the other establishments currently
operating in Downtown Phoenix. It will provide an additional craft beer option and
brewery experience to the surrounding community.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application noting the applicant must resolve any
pending City of Phoenix building and zoning requirements, and be in compliance with
the City of Phoenix Code and Ordinances.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Safe Haven Brewery
Liquor License Map - Safe Haven Brewery
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 120
Liquor License Data: SAFE HAVEN BREWERY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 3
Bar 6 41 11
Beer and Wine Bar 7 15 7
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4
Hotel 11 7 4
Restaurant 12 90 36
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 44.37 170.59 193.41
Violent Crimes 8.14 39.78 43.31
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 54 114
Total Violations 88 196
Page 121
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1130001 1218 23 % 16 % 11 %
1130002 873 29 % 21 % 38 %
1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %
1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %
1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %
1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 122
Liquor License Map: SAFE HAVEN BREWERY
915 N 4TH ST
Ü
Date: 5/24/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 123
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Golden Margarita
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207B125.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
330 E. Roosevelt St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - East Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was Feb. 22, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
Page 124
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“To ensure our employees are trained properly we have brought in a certified Title 4
instructor to our restaurant to conduct training."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval. The Police Department disapproval is based on a
history of non-compliance related to prior liquor licenses held by the applicant,
including failure to meet the required percentage of food sales and the presence of an
employee intoxicated while on duty. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.
Attachment
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - Golden Margarita
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 125
Page 126
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207B125.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
330 E. Roosevelt St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - East Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales.
The 60-day limit for processing this application was Feb. 22, 2021. However, the
applicant submitted a written request for more time.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
Page 124
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“To ensure our employees are trained properly we have brought in a certified Title 4
instructor to our restaurant to conduct training."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Police Department
recommendation for disapproval. The Police Department disapproval is based on a
history of non-compliance related to prior liquor licenses held by the applicant,
including failure to meet the required percentage of food sales and the presence of an
employee intoxicated while on duty. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability,
qualifications and reliability to hold and control a liquor license.
Attachment
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - Golden Margarita
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 125
Page 126
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Padre Murphy's
Request for an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued.
Applicant
David Auther, Agent for Arizona Downs, LLC
Location
4338 W. Bell Road, Ste. 1-4
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. At the time this
agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received, however the 20-
day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Data - Padre Murphy's
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Map - Padre Murphy's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 127
Liquor License Data: PADRE MURPHY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 45.54 38.85 63.69
Violent Crimes 8.44 4.90 10.61
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 60
Total Violations 88 80
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042251 1242 53 % 8% 9%
1042253 904 85 % 5% 11 %
1042261 949 26 % 8% 11 %
6181001 1795 84 % 3% 7%
6181003 1271 93 % 6% 0%
6183001 1982 94 % 7% 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 128
Liquor License Map: PADRE MURPHY'S
4338 W BELL RD
Ü
Date: 6/11/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 129
Report
Request for an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
12 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued.
Applicant
David Auther, Agent for Arizona Downs, LLC
Location
4338 W. Bell Road, Ste. 1-4
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 1
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. At the time this
agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received, however the 20-
day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Data - Padre Murphy's
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Map - Padre Murphy's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 127
Liquor License Data: PADRE MURPHY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 1
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 45.54 38.85 63.69
Violent Crimes 8.44 4.90 10.61
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 60
Total Violations 88 80
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1042251 1242 53 % 8% 9%
1042253 904 85 % 5% 11 %
1042261 949 26 % 8% 11 %
6181001 1795 84 % 3% 7%
6181003 1271 93 % 6% 0%
6183001 1982 94 % 7% 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 128
Liquor License Map: PADRE MURPHY'S
4338 W BELL RD
Ü
Date: 6/11/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 129
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Off-Track Pari-Mutuel Wagering Permit - Mr. Haney's
Request for an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued.
Applicant
David Auther, Agent for Arizona Downs, LLC
Location
5110 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. At the time this
agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received, however the 20-
day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Data - Mr. Haney's
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Map - Mr. Haney's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 130
Liquor License Data: MR. HANEY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Government 5 1 0
Bar 6 3 3
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 1 1
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 45.54 65.04 47.98
Violent Crimes 8.44 13.11 12.31
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 53
Total Violations 88 91
Page 131
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112012 1138 48 % 13 % 4%
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112014 620 63 % 23 % 3%
1112021 1913 6% 18 % 38 %
1112041 1729 11 % 32 % 19 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
1137005 1280 14 % 32 % 52 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 132
Liquor License Map: MR. HANEY'S
5110 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 6/11/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 133
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-47771) (Items 29-47)
Ordinance S-47771 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.
29 Pronunciator, LLC
For $19,500.00 in additional payment authority to extend Contract 143582
for Online Language Learning Resources for the Library Department. The
Library utilizes web-based database products and digital content that
provide language learning resources for all City of Phoenix library
branches. The resource provides access to language learning materials
for at least 30 languages, including Spanish and English as a Second
Language, and can be used in a variety of formats such as a web browser
or mobile application. A one-year extension is necessary to allow for
additional time to conduct a formal procurement process for a new
contract.
30 Settlement of Claim(s) Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $50,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 15-0241-001, GL, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a
settlement of bodily injury claim arising out of a police incident on March
22, 2015.
31 Settlement of Claim(s) Hughes v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $39,370.39 in settlement of claim(s) in Hughes v.
Page 134
pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a settlement of a
property damage claim arising out of a sewer backup incident on Feb. 8,
2021.
32 Settlement of Claim(s) Moran v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $32,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Moran v. City
of Phoenix and Baiardi, 19-0926-001, GL, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a bodily injury claim arising out of an off-duty police incident
on Dec. 8, 2018.
33 Simply Fog Inc.
For $24,600.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about July 15, 2021 for a term of five years for Fog Fluids for the Fire
Department. The Phoenix Fire Training Academy utilizes fog fluid for fog
machines to simulate smoke in a building on the fire ground. The
department already have numerous fog machines for training on-site and
off-site locations. The fog fluid is water-based, non-toxic, and safe for use
during training.
34 McCook Industries, LLC.
For $75,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about July 1, 2021, for a term of five years to repair and provide annual
maintenance for 10 boiler equipment and system units that are used at the
aquatic facilities to heat the City's public pools for the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Parker Boiler equipment and systems are
proprietary. The parts are solely manufactured by Parker Boiler and only
authorized licensed dealers can acquire the parts necessary for certain
repairs. Previous generic factory boiler repair contracts have been utilized
using non-OEM parts, which resulted in excessive costs and improper
repairs of the existing boiler systems. A service contract to keep the
expensive aging equipment is needed to ensure the City does not have to
replace a broken non-repairable system that could incur unnecessary
costs.
Page 135
35 State of Arizona Department of Revenue
For $4,400,000.00 for annual payment authority for IGA 150693 for the
uniform administration, collection, audit, and or licensing of transaction
privilege tax, use tax, severance tax, jet fuel excise and use taxes, and
rental occupancy taxes imposed by the State, cities or towns for the
Finance Department. Municipal Transaction Privilege Tax administration is
governed by the Arizona Revised Statute 42-6001. The Statute was
modified for the purpose of tax simplification with the passage of House
Bill 2111 in 2013 and House Bill 2389 in 2014. The Statute requires
Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR) to administer the transaction
privilege and use taxes imposed by all cities and towns, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with each city or town to reflect these
changes, and to clearly define the working relationship between the DOR
and Arizona cities and towns.
36 Cox Communications
For $135,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include a private Local Area Network solution
utilized for the Maricopa Region Emergency Services IP Network
(ESInet). ESInet provides 9-1-1 emergency communications services
among the Public Safety Answering Points in the region.
37 Cox Communications Arizona, LLC
For $96,000.00 in annual payment authority for Cox Communications
Arizona, LLC to provide cable television services for departments and
facilities citywide for the Information Technology Services Department.
Cable television is provided in some city facilities, including senior
centers, community centers, and public waiting areas.
38 Sprint, Inc.
For $660,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include delivering Wireless Phase II cellular 9-1-1
calls to the Maricopa Region 9-1-1 system.
39 Various Vendors for Registration of Domain Names
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for various vendors, including
GoDaddy and 101Domain, for registration of city domain names, including
phoenix.gov for the Information Technology Services Department for
citywide domains. The registration of domain names is necessary to host
Page 136
websites for residents to engage with the city online for information and
services.
40 Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. doing business as Allstream
Business US, LLC, Integra Telecom, Electric Lightwave,
OpticAccess
For $188,400.00 in payment authority for annual utility payment for the
Fire Department. The funds will provide the Phoenix Fire Department with
a private Local Area Network solution utilized for the Maricopa Region
Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet). The ESInet services provide
9-1-1 emergency communications among the Public Safety Answering
Points in the region.
41 Syniverse Technologies, LLC
For $80,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include Signaling System 7 as part of the telecom
architecture for 9-1-1 Wireless Call Routing Management.
42 Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as Lumen
Technologies Service Group, LLC
For $2,880,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Lumen Technologies is the Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier that provides services and manages the wire line 9-1-1 system for
the Maricopa Region.
43 Carnegie Mellon University
For $15,000.00 in payment authority to purchase Chief Information
Security Officer training and certification for the Information Technology
Services Department. The purchase is for executive level Information
Security training co-administered through Carnegie Mellon University and
the Software Engineering Institute. The six-month, nationally recognized
program provides education and collaboration with cyber security experts
on increasingly critical cyber security fields, including applied cyber risk
management, cloud security strategy, and operational resilience.
44 Central Arizona Water Conservation District doing
business as Central Arizona Project
For $28,967.00 in payment authority for a land use license necessary for
Page 137
the on-going right to use Central Arizona Project land and maintain
underground sewer lines on Cave Creek Road for a five-year term starting
April 20, 2021 through April 19, 2026 for the Water Services Department.
45 Central Arizona Water Conservation District doing
business as Central Arizona Project
For $14,766.00 in payment authority for a land use license necessary for
the on-going right to use Central Arizona Project land and maintain three
underground sewer lines on Happy Valley Road for a five-year term
starting Feb. 14, 2021 through Feb. 13, 2026 for the Water Services
Department.
46 Managed Medical Review Organization, Inc.
For $33,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 144922, for
independent medical evaluations for the Retirement Department. The
number and complexity of applications submitted has increased from
previous years, requiring additional funds. Independent medical
evaluations are used when either the City of Phoenix Employees'
Retirement System (COPERS) Board, Disability Assessment Committee,
or the Local Police and Fire Retirement Boards (Local Boards) require
information to determine the eligibility of individuals for a disability
retirement. Further, state statute requires all public safety members who
have filed an application for disability retirement be referred for an
independent medical evaluation by a board certified, Arizona licensed
physician in order to determine if they meet the criteria listed in Arizona
Revised Statutes, section 38-859. Memorandum of Understanding
144978--0 is the agreement between the COPERS Board and the Local
Boards that permits the Local Boards to use the COPERS contract.
47 Granicus, LLC
For $18,000.00 in payment authority for a new agreement, to be entered
on or about July 1, 2021, for a term of one year for the Street
Transportation Department for Interactive texting services. The service
enables a safe and easy way for Phoenix residents to provide feedback in
public processes related to the Active Transportation Plan - an update to
the Bicycle Master Plan. The contract will allow residents to opt-in to future
text message updates or surveys from Street Transportation.
Page 138
Report
Request for an Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit for a business that has a Series
6 liquor license.
Summary
State law requires City Council approval before a State Off-track Pari-mutuel Wagering
Permit can be issued.
Applicant
David Auther, Agent for Arizona Downs, LLC
Location
5110 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
Public Opinion
Public notice was posted at the proposed location and special notice letters were
mailed to residents within a 1/8 mile radius of the proposed location. At the time this
agenda was finalized, no protest or support letters had been received, however the 20-
day public comment period had not yet concluded.
Staff Recommendation
Staff makes no recommendation regarding this application pending the completion of
the departmental reviews and the posting process.
Attachments
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Data - Mr. Haney's
Off-Track Pari-mutuel Wagering Permit Map - Mr. Haney's
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 130
Liquor License Data: MR. HANEY'S
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Government 5 1 0
Bar 6 3 3
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 1 1
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 45.54 65.04 47.98
Violent Crimes 8.44 13.11 12.31
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 55 53
Total Violations 88 91
Page 131
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112012 1138 48 % 13 % 4%
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112014 620 63 % 23 % 3%
1112021 1913 6% 18 % 38 %
1112041 1729 11 % 32 % 19 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
1137005 1280 14 % 32 % 52 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 132
Liquor License Map: MR. HANEY'S
5110 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 6/11/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 133
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-47771) (Items 29-47)
Ordinance S-47771 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.
29 Pronunciator, LLC
For $19,500.00 in additional payment authority to extend Contract 143582
for Online Language Learning Resources for the Library Department. The
Library utilizes web-based database products and digital content that
provide language learning resources for all City of Phoenix library
branches. The resource provides access to language learning materials
for at least 30 languages, including Spanish and English as a Second
Language, and can be used in a variety of formats such as a web browser
or mobile application. A one-year extension is necessary to allow for
additional time to conduct a formal procurement process for a new
contract.
30 Settlement of Claim(s) Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $50,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Hollingsworth v. City of Phoenix, 15-0241-001, GL, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a
settlement of bodily injury claim arising out of a police incident on March
22, 2015.
31 Settlement of Claim(s) Hughes v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $39,370.39 in settlement of claim(s) in Hughes v.
Page 134
pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a settlement of a
property damage claim arising out of a sewer backup incident on Feb. 8,
2021.
32 Settlement of Claim(s) Moran v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $32,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Moran v. City
of Phoenix and Baiardi, 19-0926-001, GL, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code chapter 42. This is a
settlement of a bodily injury claim arising out of an off-duty police incident
on Dec. 8, 2018.
33 Simply Fog Inc.
For $24,600.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about July 15, 2021 for a term of five years for Fog Fluids for the Fire
Department. The Phoenix Fire Training Academy utilizes fog fluid for fog
machines to simulate smoke in a building on the fire ground. The
department already have numerous fog machines for training on-site and
off-site locations. The fog fluid is water-based, non-toxic, and safe for use
during training.
34 McCook Industries, LLC.
For $75,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about July 1, 2021, for a term of five years to repair and provide annual
maintenance for 10 boiler equipment and system units that are used at the
aquatic facilities to heat the City's public pools for the Parks and
Recreation Department. The Parker Boiler equipment and systems are
proprietary. The parts are solely manufactured by Parker Boiler and only
authorized licensed dealers can acquire the parts necessary for certain
repairs. Previous generic factory boiler repair contracts have been utilized
using non-OEM parts, which resulted in excessive costs and improper
repairs of the existing boiler systems. A service contract to keep the
expensive aging equipment is needed to ensure the City does not have to
replace a broken non-repairable system that could incur unnecessary
costs.
Page 135
35 State of Arizona Department of Revenue
For $4,400,000.00 for annual payment authority for IGA 150693 for the
uniform administration, collection, audit, and or licensing of transaction
privilege tax, use tax, severance tax, jet fuel excise and use taxes, and
rental occupancy taxes imposed by the State, cities or towns for the
Finance Department. Municipal Transaction Privilege Tax administration is
governed by the Arizona Revised Statute 42-6001. The Statute was
modified for the purpose of tax simplification with the passage of House
Bill 2111 in 2013 and House Bill 2389 in 2014. The Statute requires
Arizona Department of Revenue (DOR) to administer the transaction
privilege and use taxes imposed by all cities and towns, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with each city or town to reflect these
changes, and to clearly define the working relationship between the DOR
and Arizona cities and towns.
36 Cox Communications
For $135,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include a private Local Area Network solution
utilized for the Maricopa Region Emergency Services IP Network
(ESInet). ESInet provides 9-1-1 emergency communications services
among the Public Safety Answering Points in the region.
37 Cox Communications Arizona, LLC
For $96,000.00 in annual payment authority for Cox Communications
Arizona, LLC to provide cable television services for departments and
facilities citywide for the Information Technology Services Department.
Cable television is provided in some city facilities, including senior
centers, community centers, and public waiting areas.
38 Sprint, Inc.
For $660,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include delivering Wireless Phase II cellular 9-1-1
calls to the Maricopa Region 9-1-1 system.
39 Various Vendors for Registration of Domain Names
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for various vendors, including
GoDaddy and 101Domain, for registration of city domain names, including
phoenix.gov for the Information Technology Services Department for
citywide domains. The registration of domain names is necessary to host
Page 136
websites for residents to engage with the city online for information and
services.
40 Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. doing business as Allstream
Business US, LLC, Integra Telecom, Electric Lightwave,
OpticAccess
For $188,400.00 in payment authority for annual utility payment for the
Fire Department. The funds will provide the Phoenix Fire Department with
a private Local Area Network solution utilized for the Maricopa Region
Emergency Services IP Network (ESInet). The ESInet services provide
9-1-1 emergency communications among the Public Safety Answering
Points in the region.
41 Syniverse Technologies, LLC
For $80,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Services include Signaling System 7 as part of the telecom
architecture for 9-1-1 Wireless Call Routing Management.
42 Lumen Technologies, Inc. doing business as Lumen
Technologies Service Group, LLC
For $2,880,000.00 for annual payment authority for the Phoenix Fire
Department. Lumen Technologies is the Incumbent Local Exchange
Carrier that provides services and manages the wire line 9-1-1 system for
the Maricopa Region.
43 Carnegie Mellon University
For $15,000.00 in payment authority to purchase Chief Information
Security Officer training and certification for the Information Technology
Services Department. The purchase is for executive level Information
Security training co-administered through Carnegie Mellon University and
the Software Engineering Institute. The six-month, nationally recognized
program provides education and collaboration with cyber security experts
on increasingly critical cyber security fields, including applied cyber risk
management, cloud security strategy, and operational resilience.
44 Central Arizona Water Conservation District doing
business as Central Arizona Project
For $28,967.00 in payment authority for a land use license necessary for
Page 137
the on-going right to use Central Arizona Project land and maintain
underground sewer lines on Cave Creek Road for a five-year term starting
April 20, 2021 through April 19, 2026 for the Water Services Department.
45 Central Arizona Water Conservation District doing
business as Central Arizona Project
For $14,766.00 in payment authority for a land use license necessary for
the on-going right to use Central Arizona Project land and maintain three
underground sewer lines on Happy Valley Road for a five-year term
starting Feb. 14, 2021 through Feb. 13, 2026 for the Water Services
Department.
46 Managed Medical Review Organization, Inc.
For $33,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 144922, for
independent medical evaluations for the Retirement Department. The
number and complexity of applications submitted has increased from
previous years, requiring additional funds. Independent medical
evaluations are used when either the City of Phoenix Employees'
Retirement System (COPERS) Board, Disability Assessment Committee,
or the Local Police and Fire Retirement Boards (Local Boards) require
information to determine the eligibility of individuals for a disability
retirement. Further, state statute requires all public safety members who
have filed an application for disability retirement be referred for an
independent medical evaluation by a board certified, Arizona licensed
physician in order to determine if they meet the criteria listed in Arizona
Revised Statutes, section 38-859. Memorandum of Understanding
144978--0 is the agreement between the COPERS Board and the Local
Boards that permits the Local Boards to use the COPERS contract.
47 Granicus, LLC
For $18,000.00 in payment authority for a new agreement, to be entered
on or about July 1, 2021, for a term of one year for the Street
Transportation Department for Interactive texting services. The service
enables a safe and easy way for Phoenix residents to provide feedback in
public processes related to the Active Transportation Plan - an update to
the Bicycle Master Plan. The contract will allow residents to opt-in to future
text message updates or surveys from Street Transportation.
Page 138
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 23, 2021) - Odor Control Services - Requirements
Contract - IFB 21-107 (Ordinance S-47767)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Beckman and Monson Holdings LLC doing business as Aire-Master of Phoenix to
purchase Odor Control Services for citywide use. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
will not exceed $490,000.
Summary
This contract will provide all materials, labor, and supervision to furnish, install and
maintain odor control devices in various City facilities. Services required include the
use of a variety of scented deodorants, odor counteractants, and dispensers of various
sizes and functions. All fragrant deodorants products shall be environmentally safe, as
allergy-free as possible with no toxins that may contaminate the air.
Procurement Information
IFB 21-107 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were three offers received by the Procurement Division on May 21, 2021 which were
evaluated on price, responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the
required goods and services. The bid notification was sent to 255 suppliers and was
publicly posted and available for download from the City's website.
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from Beckman and Monson
Holdings LLC doing business as Aire-Master of Phoenix be accepted as the lowest
priced, responsive and responsible offer.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $490,000. Funds are available in the
various departments' budgets.
Page 139
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 140
Page 141
Report
Contract - IFB 21-107 (Ordinance S-47767)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Beckman and Monson Holdings LLC doing business as Aire-Master of Phoenix to
purchase Odor Control Services for citywide use. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value
will not exceed $490,000.
Summary
This contract will provide all materials, labor, and supervision to furnish, install and
maintain odor control devices in various City facilities. Services required include the
use of a variety of scented deodorants, odor counteractants, and dispensers of various
sizes and functions. All fragrant deodorants products shall be environmentally safe, as
allergy-free as possible with no toxins that may contaminate the air.
Procurement Information
IFB 21-107 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were three offers received by the Procurement Division on May 21, 2021 which were
evaluated on price, responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the
required goods and services. The bid notification was sent to 255 suppliers and was
publicly posted and available for download from the City's website.
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from Beckman and Monson
Holdings LLC doing business as Aire-Master of Phoenix be accepted as the lowest
priced, responsive and responsible offer.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $490,000. Funds are available in the
various departments' budgets.
Page 139
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 140
Page 141
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing on Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2021-22 Fiscal Year
As required by State statute, request the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the
adoption of a property tax levy for the City of Phoenix for 2021-22.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2021-22 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 18, 2021 Policy meeting, at the June 2, 2021 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2021-22 budget, and at the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2021-22 budget. At the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with statutory truth-in-
taxation requirements.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 142
Report
As required by State statute, request the City Council hold a public hearing prior to the
adoption of a property tax levy for the City of Phoenix for 2021-22.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2021-22 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 18, 2021 Policy meeting, at the June 2, 2021 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2021-22 budget, and at the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2021-22 budget. At the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with statutory truth-in-
taxation requirements.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 142
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Adoption of Property Tax Levy for 2021-22 Fiscal Year (Ordinance S-47779)
An ordinance levying separate amounts to be raised for primary and secondary
property tax levies upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of the assessed valuation
of the property subject to taxation within the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2022.
The ordinance (Attachment A) provides for a primary property tax rate resulting in a
levy of $193,225,455 (a General Fund revenue source) equating to a rate of $1.3055
per $100 of assessed valuation, including $0.08 for maintenance of parks and
playgrounds and $0.3055 for the operation and maintenance of libraries; and an
estimated secondary property tax levy of $120,493,943 (used only for debt service)
equating to a rate of $0.8141 per $100 of assessed valuation. The total rate of $2.1196
is $0.01 lower than the total 2020-21 rate of $2.1296.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2021-22 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 18, 2021 Policy meeting, at the June 2, 2021 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2021-22 budget, and at the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2021-22 budget. At the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with statutory truth-in-
taxation requirements.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 143
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-#####
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING SEPARATE AMOUNTS TO BE
RAISED FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00)
OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT
AF
TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022.
______________
T
WHEREAS, by the provisions of the City Charter an ordinance levying
taxes for the fiscal year 2021-22 is required to be finally adopted not later than the last
regular Council meeting in July of said fiscal year, which date complies with State law
requirements; and
R WHEREAS, the County of Maricopa is now the tax assessing and
collecting authority for the City of Phoenix, the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a
D
certified copy of this tax levy ordinance to the Assessor and the Board of Supervisors of
Maricopa County, Arizona as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. There is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory
interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may
Page 144
be by law exempt from taxation, a primary property tax rate equating to $1.3055 which
is sufficient to generate a primary property levy of ONE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE
MILLION, TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, AND FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($193,225,455), an amount less than the maximum allowable
primary tax levy under the Arizona Constitution. The primary tax levy is allocated into
the following amounts or rates for each of the following purposes:
(a) For the purpose of providing funds for the GENERAL MUNICIPAL
AF
AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES of the City, in accordance with Chapter XVIII -
Section 8 of the City Charter, a tax rate of $1.00 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of limited assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory
T
interest property in the City of Phoenix, which includes $0.08 per ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($100.00) of such limited assessed valuation for the purpose of providing
funds for the OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, in
accordance with Chapter XXIII - Section 2 - Subsection 2 of the City Charter.
R (b) For the purpose of providing funds for the OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF LIBRARIES, in accordance with Chapter XVIII - Section 11 of the
D
City Charter, a tax rate of $0.3055 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) of limited
assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory interest property in the
SECTION 2. In addition to the property tax levy for primary purposes set
in Section 1 above, there is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory
interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may
Page 145
by law be exempt from taxation, a secondary tax rate of $0.8141 for secondary
purposes for paying principal of and interest on or redemption charges on general
obligation bonds of the City of Phoenix.
SECTION 3. The primary property tax rate as calculated in Section 1 and
the secondary tax rate as calculated in Section 2 shall equal a combined tax rate of
$2.1196.
SECTION 4. Failure by the County officials of Maricopa County, Arizona
AF
to properly return the delinquent list, any irregularity in assessments or omissions in the
same, or any irregularity in any proceedings shall not invalidate such proceedings or
invalidate any title conveyed by a tax deed; failure or neglect of any officer or officers to
T
timely perform any of the duties assigned to him or to them shall not invalidate any
proceedings or any deed or sale pursuant thereto; the questioned validity of
assessment or levy of taxes or of the judgment of sale by which collection of the same
may be enforced shall not affect the lien of the City upon such property for the
R
delinquent taxes unpaid thereon; overcharge as to part of the taxes or of costs shall not
invalidate any proceedings for the collection of taxes or the foreclosure of the lien
D
therefore or a sale of the property under such foreclosures; and all acts of officers de
facto shall be valid as if performed by officers de jure.
Page 146
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 1st day of July, 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
AF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
T Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
Page 147
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2021-22 LEGAL LIMIT
PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR PRIMARY PURPOSES
A.R.S. § 42-17051, Subsection A
1. Maximum allowable levy for the prior year $ 185,428,990
2. The above figure increased by two percent (2%) 189,137,570
3. Current Assessed Value of last year’s property 14,481,643,949
4. A. “3” divided by 100 144,816,439
B. Maximum Allowable Tax Rate equals - “2” divided by “4A”
5.
AF
($189,137,570 $144,816,439)
Estimated Current Assessed Value
1.3061
14,800,877,416
T
6. A. Current Assessed Value divided by 100 148,008,774
B. Levy equals - “4B” multiplied by “6A” 193,314,260
($1.3061 X $148,008,774)
Estimated over collections of the 2020-21 primary
property tax levy will reduce this estimate as follows:
7. A. Estimated over collections of 2020-21 primary levy -0-
8. RB. Maximum Allowable Levy Limit for 2021-22
Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit and Tax Rate:
$ 193,314,260
D A. Allowable Levy Limit for 2021-22
B. Accepted Torts
C. Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit
D. Adjusted Allowable Tax Rate - “8C” divided by “6A”
($193,314,260 $148,008,774)
2021-22 Primary Levy
$
$
$
193,314,260
-0-
193,314,260
1.3061
193,225,455
2021-22 Primary Tax Rate 1.3055
Page 148
Report
An ordinance levying separate amounts to be raised for primary and secondary
property tax levies upon each one hundred dollars ($100.00) of the assessed valuation
of the property subject to taxation within the City of Phoenix for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 2022.
The ordinance (Attachment A) provides for a primary property tax rate resulting in a
levy of $193,225,455 (a General Fund revenue source) equating to a rate of $1.3055
per $100 of assessed valuation, including $0.08 for maintenance of parks and
playgrounds and $0.3055 for the operation and maintenance of libraries; and an
estimated secondary property tax levy of $120,493,943 (used only for debt service)
equating to a rate of $0.8141 per $100 of assessed valuation. The total rate of $2.1196
is $0.01 lower than the total 2020-21 rate of $2.1296.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The proposed 2021-22 property tax levy reflects actions taken by the Council on the
budget at the May 18, 2021 Policy meeting, at the June 2, 2021 Formal meeting to
adopt the tentative 2021-22 budget, and at the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting to adopt
the final 2021-22 budget. At the June 16, 2021 Formal meeting, a public hearing on the
proposed primary property tax levy was held in accordance with statutory truth-in-
taxation requirements.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher, Assistant City Manager Jeff
Barton and the Budget and Research Department.
Page 143
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE S-#####
AN ORDINANCE LEVYING SEPARATE AMOUNTS TO BE
RAISED FOR PRIMARY AND SECONDARY PROPERTY TAX
LEVIES UPON EACH ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00)
OF THE ASSESSED VALUATION OF PROPERTY SUBJECT
AF
TO TAXATION WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2022.
______________
T
WHEREAS, by the provisions of the City Charter an ordinance levying
taxes for the fiscal year 2021-22 is required to be finally adopted not later than the last
regular Council meeting in July of said fiscal year, which date complies with State law
requirements; and
R WHEREAS, the County of Maricopa is now the tax assessing and
collecting authority for the City of Phoenix, the City Clerk is hereby directed to transmit a
D
certified copy of this tax levy ordinance to the Assessor and the Board of Supervisors of
Maricopa County, Arizona as required by law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PHOENIX as follows:
SECTION 1. There is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory
interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may
Page 144
be by law exempt from taxation, a primary property tax rate equating to $1.3055 which
is sufficient to generate a primary property levy of ONE HUNDRED NINETY-THREE
MILLION, TWO HUNDRED TWENTY-FIVE THOUSAND, AND FOUR HUNDRED
FIFTY-FIVE DOLLARS ($193,225,455), an amount less than the maximum allowable
primary tax levy under the Arizona Constitution. The primary tax levy is allocated into
the following amounts or rates for each of the following purposes:
(a) For the purpose of providing funds for the GENERAL MUNICIPAL
AF
AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES of the City, in accordance with Chapter XVIII -
Section 8 of the City Charter, a tax rate of $1.00 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of limited assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory
T
interest property in the City of Phoenix, which includes $0.08 per ONE HUNDRED
DOLLARS ($100.00) of such limited assessed valuation for the purpose of providing
funds for the OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, in
accordance with Chapter XXIII - Section 2 - Subsection 2 of the City Charter.
R (b) For the purpose of providing funds for the OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE OF LIBRARIES, in accordance with Chapter XVIII - Section 11 of the
D
City Charter, a tax rate of $0.3055 per ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100.00) of limited
assessed valuation of all taxable real, personal and possessory interest property in the
SECTION 2. In addition to the property tax levy for primary purposes set
in Section 1 above, there is hereby levied on each ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS
($100.00) of the limited assessed value of all property, real, personal and possessory
interest, within the corporate limits of the City of Phoenix, except such property as may
Page 145
by law be exempt from taxation, a secondary tax rate of $0.8141 for secondary
purposes for paying principal of and interest on or redemption charges on general
obligation bonds of the City of Phoenix.
SECTION 3. The primary property tax rate as calculated in Section 1 and
the secondary tax rate as calculated in Section 2 shall equal a combined tax rate of
$2.1196.
SECTION 4. Failure by the County officials of Maricopa County, Arizona
AF
to properly return the delinquent list, any irregularity in assessments or omissions in the
same, or any irregularity in any proceedings shall not invalidate such proceedings or
invalidate any title conveyed by a tax deed; failure or neglect of any officer or officers to
T
timely perform any of the duties assigned to him or to them shall not invalidate any
proceedings or any deed or sale pursuant thereto; the questioned validity of
assessment or levy of taxes or of the judgment of sale by which collection of the same
may be enforced shall not affect the lien of the City upon such property for the
R
delinquent taxes unpaid thereon; overcharge as to part of the taxes or of costs shall not
invalidate any proceedings for the collection of taxes or the foreclosure of the lien
D
therefore or a sale of the property under such foreclosures; and all acts of officers de
facto shall be valid as if performed by officers de jure.
Page 146
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix on this 1st day of July, 2021.
_________________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
AF
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
T Acting City Attorney
City Manager
R
D
Page 147
PHOENIX, ARIZONA
2021-22 LEGAL LIMIT
PROPERTY TAX LEVY FOR PRIMARY PURPOSES
A.R.S. § 42-17051, Subsection A
1. Maximum allowable levy for the prior year $ 185,428,990
2. The above figure increased by two percent (2%) 189,137,570
3. Current Assessed Value of last year’s property 14,481,643,949
4. A. “3” divided by 100 144,816,439
B. Maximum Allowable Tax Rate equals - “2” divided by “4A”
5.
AF
($189,137,570 $144,816,439)
Estimated Current Assessed Value
1.3061
14,800,877,416
T
6. A. Current Assessed Value divided by 100 148,008,774
B. Levy equals - “4B” multiplied by “6A” 193,314,260
($1.3061 X $148,008,774)
Estimated over collections of the 2020-21 primary
property tax levy will reduce this estimate as follows:
7. A. Estimated over collections of 2020-21 primary levy -0-
8. RB. Maximum Allowable Levy Limit for 2021-22
Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit and Tax Rate:
$ 193,314,260
D A. Allowable Levy Limit for 2021-22
B. Accepted Torts
C. Adjusted Allowable Levy Limit
D. Adjusted Allowable Tax Rate - “8C” divided by “6A”
($193,314,260 $148,008,774)
2021-22 Primary Levy
$
$
$
193,314,260
-0-
193,314,260
1.3061
193,225,455
2021-22 Primary Tax Rate 1.3055
Page 148
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request for City Council to Call to Meet in Executive Session on Specific Dates
through December 2021
Request for the City Council to call meetings for the purpose of holding an Executive
Session pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, section 38-431.03.A, on the following
dates at Noon in the Central Conference Room, 12th Floor of Phoenix City Hall, 200
W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona.
· Sept. 7
· Sept. 21
· Oct. 12
· Oct. 26
· Nov. 9
· Dec. 7
Public Outreach
The Notice and Agenda for these Executive Sessions will be posted no later than 24
hours before each scheduled meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Page 149
Report
through December 2021
Request for the City Council to call meetings for the purpose of holding an Executive
Session pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, section 38-431.03.A, on the following
dates at Noon in the Central Conference Room, 12th Floor of Phoenix City Hall, 200
W. Washington St., Phoenix, Arizona.
· Sept. 7
· Sept. 21
· Oct. 12
· Oct. 26
· Nov. 9
· Dec. 7
Public Outreach
The Notice and Agenda for these Executive Sessions will be posted no later than 24
hours before each scheduled meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department.
Page 149
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Payment Ordinance for Summer Recess (Ordinance S-47790)
The request is prepared each fiscal year end to allow for continuance of operations
during the annual Council summer recess.
Summary
Request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds, not to exceed $100,000 per
vendor, per occurrence, arising or otherwise due and payable during the period
commencing on July 1, 2021 through August 24, 2021, for the purpose of continuing
payment authority for expenditure of public money for payment of claims against the
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone, the Chief Financial
Officer and the City Controller.
Page 150
Report
The request is prepared each fiscal year end to allow for continuance of operations
during the annual Council summer recess.
Summary
Request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds, not to exceed $100,000 per
vendor, per occurrence, arising or otherwise due and payable during the period
commencing on July 1, 2021 through August 24, 2021, for the purpose of continuing
payment authority for expenditure of public money for payment of claims against the
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone, the Chief Financial
Officer and the City Controller.
Page 150
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of a Deed and Easement for Sidewalk and Roadway
Purposes (Ordinance S-47788)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easement for sidewalk
and roadway purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Chamberlain Development, L.L.C., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 6950 W. Buckeye Road
File: FN 210036
Council District: 7
Deed (b)
Applicant: Chipman Apartments, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 1135 E. Chipman Road
File: FN 210026
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 151
Report
Purposes (Ordinance S-47788)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate a deed and easement for sidewalk
and roadway purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Chamberlain Development, L.L.C., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 6950 W. Buckeye Road
File: FN 210036
Council District: 7
Deed (b)
Applicant: Chipman Apartments, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 1135 E. Chipman Road
File: FN 210026
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 151
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of an Easement for Public Utility Purposes
(Ordinance S-47784)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate an easement for public utility
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: North Valley Assembly of God, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 28660 N. Black Canyon Highway
File: FN 200595
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning
and Development and Finance departments.
Page 152
Report
(Ordinance S-47784)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate an easement for public utility
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: North Valley Assembly of God, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 28660 N. Black Canyon Highway
File: FN 200595
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning
and Development and Finance departments.
Page 152
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance of Easement for Water Purposes (Ordinance S-47786)
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for water purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Lincoln View Plaza LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Water
Location: 3113 E. Lincoln Drive
File: FN 210025
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 153
Report
Request for the City Council to accept an easement for water purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Summary
Accepting the property interests below will meet the Planning and Development
Department's Single Instrument Dedication Process requirement prior to releasing any
permits to applicants.
Easement (a)
Applicant: Lincoln View Plaza LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Water
Location: 3113 E. Lincoln Drive
File: FN 210025
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 153
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Assignment of Right-of-Way (16-104453) from
Arizona State Land Department for Roadway and Underground Utility Purposes
(Ordinance S-47772)
Request for the City Council to accept an assignment of a portion of right-of-way from
the Arizona State Land Department for roadway and underground utilities and to
dedicate the land to public use for roadway and underground utility purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18, as the Arizona State Land Department's
documents include such provisions.
Summary
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) acquired approximately 1.18 acres of right-of-
way for roadway and underground utilities from the Arizona State Land Department for
legal access to their APS facility. As a condition of the right-of-way acquisition, APS is
required to assign and transfer all title and interest of the right-of-way to the City. The
Street Transportation Department has agreed to accept only the portion of right-of-way
within the City's jurisdiction. The portion of right-of-way outside of the City limits is
excepted out of this acceptance. The right-of-way is located west of 56th Street along
Jomax Road and is further described in the legal description to be recorded with the
ordinance.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix as the right-of-way and all fees
associated with this transaction were paid by APS.
Location
West of 56th Street along Jomax Road.
Council District: 2
Page 154
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 155
Report
Arizona State Land Department for Roadway and Underground Utility Purposes
(Ordinance S-47772)
Request for the City Council to accept an assignment of a portion of right-of-way from
the Arizona State Land Department for roadway and underground utilities and to
dedicate the land to public use for roadway and underground utility purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18, as the Arizona State Land Department's
documents include such provisions.
Summary
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) acquired approximately 1.18 acres of right-of-
way for roadway and underground utilities from the Arizona State Land Department for
legal access to their APS facility. As a condition of the right-of-way acquisition, APS is
required to assign and transfer all title and interest of the right-of-way to the City. The
Street Transportation Department has agreed to accept only the portion of right-of-way
within the City's jurisdiction. The portion of right-of-way outside of the City limits is
excepted out of this acceptance. The right-of-way is located west of 56th Street along
Jomax Road and is further described in the legal description to be recorded with the
ordinance.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix as the right-of-way and all fees
associated with this transaction were paid by APS.
Location
West of 56th Street along Jomax Road.
Council District: 2
Page 154
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 155
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acquisition of Real Property for High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Signals at
Seven Locations (Ordinance S-47774)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire real property and
related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value, or
by the power of eminent domain for High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk signals at
seven locations. Further request to authorize dedication of land with roadway and/or
public improvements to the public use via separate recording instrument. Additionally
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
Acquisition of real property is required to install High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk
(HAWK) signals. Improvements include illuminated crosswalks, Americans with
Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks and ramps, pedestrian signals, pavement, curb
and gutter. The project will enhance pedestrian crossing safety at the following
locations:
1. 17th and Peoria Avenues;
2. 7th Avenue and Colter Street;
3. Thomas Road and Dayton Street;
4. 16th Street and Virginia Avenue;
5. 13th Avenue and Osborn Road;
6. 16th Avenue and Buckeye Road; and
7. 19th and Glendale Avenues.
The properties impacted by this project are identified in Attachment A.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
Various locations.
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5 and 8
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 157
Attachment A
Property Identification
The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and included in this
request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or
location.
APN Address / Location
105-03-069H 1240 S. 16th Ave.
110-14-040A 1402 W. Osborn Road
110-28-026 1301 W. Osborn Road
112-14-037A 1602 W. Buckeye Road
117-04-012 2635 N. 16th St.
117-20-124 2630 N. 16th St.
117-28-002 2816 N. Dayton St.
156-43-125A 902 W. Colter St. (City-owned land - portion to be dedicated)
162-27-101A 5201 N. 7th Ave.
157-16-012 1804 W. Glendale Ave.
156-17-004G 1815 W. Glendale Ave.
Page 158
Report
Seven Locations (Ordinance S-47774)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire real property and
related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value, or
by the power of eminent domain for High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk signals at
seven locations. Further request to authorize dedication of land with roadway and/or
public improvements to the public use via separate recording instrument. Additionally
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
Acquisition of real property is required to install High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk
(HAWK) signals. Improvements include illuminated crosswalks, Americans with
Disabilities Act compliant sidewalks and ramps, pedestrian signals, pavement, curb
and gutter. The project will enhance pedestrian crossing safety at the following
locations:
1. 17th and Peoria Avenues;
2. 7th Avenue and Colter Street;
3. Thomas Road and Dayton Street;
4. 16th Street and Virginia Avenue;
5. 13th Avenue and Osborn Road;
6. 16th Avenue and Buckeye Road; and
7. 19th and Glendale Avenues.
The properties impacted by this project are identified in Attachment A.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Location
Various locations.
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5 and 8
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 157
Attachment A
Property Identification
The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and included in this
request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or
location.
APN Address / Location
105-03-069H 1240 S. 16th Ave.
110-14-040A 1402 W. Osborn Road
110-28-026 1301 W. Osborn Road
112-14-037A 1602 W. Buckeye Road
117-04-012 2635 N. 16th St.
117-20-124 2630 N. 16th St.
117-28-002 2816 N. Dayton St.
156-43-125A 902 W. Colter St. (City-owned land - portion to be dedicated)
162-27-101A 5201 N. 7th Ave.
157-16-012 1804 W. Glendale Ave.
156-17-004G 1815 W. Glendale Ave.
Page 158
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acquisition of Real Property for Roadway Improvements Along 48th Street
Between Pointe Parkway West Traffic Circle and Baseline Road (Ordinance S-
47808)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value,
or by the power of eminent domain required for roadway improvements along 48th
Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road. Further
request to authorize dedication of land with roadway and/or public improvements to
public use for right-of-way purposes via separate recording instrument. Additionally
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City entered into Development Agreement 143841 with Pointe South Mountain
Business Park Association (Association) for the construction of public improvements
including the build out of 48th Street as a public roadway. The Association worked with
the City to secure dedications from existing owners and members of the Association.
Additional acquisition of real property is required to obtain property rights needed to
begin construction.
The parcels affected by this project and included in this request are identified in
Attachment A.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Development Agreement 143841 (Ordinance S-42241) on Jan. 6, 2016; and
· Acceptance and Dedication of Land (Ordinance S-47122) on Nov. 18, 2020.
Location
48th Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road.
Council District: 6
Page 159
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 160
Attachment A
Property Identification
Roadway Improvements Along 48th Street Between the Pointe Parkway West Traffic Circle and
Baseline Road
The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and included in this
request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or
location.
APN Address / Location
301-11-955 7777 South Pointe Pkway West
301-14-002 4926 E. Beverly Road
301-14-019B 4725 E. Baseline Road
301-14-019C 4725 E. Baseline Road
301-14-020E 2785 W. Baseline Road
301-14-020G 2785 W. Baseline Road
301-14-044 8181 S. 48th St.
301-14-930 7815 S. 48th St.
301-15-139 2727 W. Baseline Road
301-15-145 South of Baseline Road along 48th Street
Page 161
Report
Between Pointe Parkway West Traffic Circle and Baseline Road (Ordinance S-
47808)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests by donation, purchase within the City's appraised value,
or by the power of eminent domain required for roadway improvements along 48th
Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road. Further
request to authorize dedication of land with roadway and/or public improvements to
public use for right-of-way purposes via separate recording instrument. Additionally
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City entered into Development Agreement 143841 with Pointe South Mountain
Business Park Association (Association) for the construction of public improvements
including the build out of 48th Street as a public roadway. The Association worked with
the City to secure dedications from existing owners and members of the Association.
Additional acquisition of real property is required to obtain property rights needed to
begin construction.
The parcels affected by this project and included in this request are identified in
Attachment A.
Financial Impact
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement
Program budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Development Agreement 143841 (Ordinance S-42241) on Jan. 6, 2016; and
· Acceptance and Dedication of Land (Ordinance S-47122) on Nov. 18, 2020.
Location
48th Street between the Pointe Parkway West traffic circle and Baseline Road.
Council District: 6
Page 159
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.
Page 160
Attachment A
Property Identification
Roadway Improvements Along 48th Street Between the Pointe Parkway West Traffic Circle and
Baseline Road
The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and included in this
request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or
location.
APN Address / Location
301-11-955 7777 South Pointe Pkway West
301-14-002 4926 E. Beverly Road
301-14-019B 4725 E. Baseline Road
301-14-019C 4725 E. Baseline Road
301-14-020E 2785 W. Baseline Road
301-14-020G 2785 W. Baseline Road
301-14-044 8181 S. 48th St.
301-14-930 7815 S. 48th St.
301-15-139 2727 W. Baseline Road
301-15-145 South of Baseline Road along 48th Street
Page 161
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Execute Agreements with Arizona Public Service and Grant
Related Easements for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at 305 W. Washington
and 324 and 424 W. Adams Streets (Ordinance S-47777)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute agreements with
Arizona Public Service and grant related easements for electric vehicle charging
stations at 305 W. Washington and 324 and 424 W. Adams streets.
Summary
Arizona Public Service (APS) is conducting an Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Pilot
Program (Program) for installation of EV charging stations to assess EV consumer
purchasing and the use of EV charging stations. The Program will be in place for five
years and may terminated at any time by APS. Upon termination, the City may elect to
take ownership of, or have APS remove, the EV charging stations.
At no cost to the City, APS will design, construct, and install all necessary
infrastructure and charging stations. APS will install 8 EV chargers in the parking
garage at 305 W. Washington St. and 5 EV chargers in the parking garage at 324 and
424 W. Adams St. APS will provide semi-annual inspections, testing and firmware
upgrades. The City is responsible for weekly safety inspections to keep the charging
stations clear and free of debris.
The City may be required to grant easements or licenses for infrastructure related to
the installation and operation of the EV charging stations. If the City elects to take
ownership of the EV charging stations, APS will transfer title to the City.
Contract Term
The agreement term will be for five years.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.
Location
305 W. Washington Street
324 W. Adams Street
Page 162
424 W. Adams Street
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
and Finance departments.
Page 163
Report
Related Easements for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations at 305 W. Washington
and 324 and 424 W. Adams Streets (Ordinance S-47777)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute agreements with
Arizona Public Service and grant related easements for electric vehicle charging
stations at 305 W. Washington and 324 and 424 W. Adams streets.
Summary
Arizona Public Service (APS) is conducting an Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Pilot
Program (Program) for installation of EV charging stations to assess EV consumer
purchasing and the use of EV charging stations. The Program will be in place for five
years and may terminated at any time by APS. Upon termination, the City may elect to
take ownership of, or have APS remove, the EV charging stations.
At no cost to the City, APS will design, construct, and install all necessary
infrastructure and charging stations. APS will install 8 EV chargers in the parking
garage at 305 W. Washington St. and 5 EV chargers in the parking garage at 324 and
424 W. Adams St. APS will provide semi-annual inspections, testing and firmware
upgrades. The City is responsible for weekly safety inspections to keep the charging
stations clear and free of debris.
The City may be required to grant easements or licenses for infrastructure related to
the installation and operation of the EV charging stations. If the City elects to take
ownership of the EV charging stations, APS will transfer title to the City.
Contract Term
The agreement term will be for five years.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.
Location
305 W. Washington Street
324 W. Adams Street
Page 162
424 W. Adams Street
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
and Finance departments.
Page 163
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Accept Real Property for Middle Vista Hillside Mountain
Preserve West of N. Black Canyon Highway Along Dixileta Drive Alignment
(Ordinance S-47789)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept by donation real
property located west of the N. Black Canyon Highway and along the Dixileta Drive
alignment for Mountain Preserve purposes, to be designated as "Mountain Preserve"
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the City Charter.
Summary
The property is being developed by Lennar as Middle Vista Hillside Subdivision (KIVA
13-1972 / PLAT 200619) which consists of 228 single-family lots. As part of the
rezoning stipulation, GM Gabrych Family Limited Partnership and/or Lennar Arizona,
Inc., its successor or assigns will donate approximately 117 acres along the west side
of the development for the Middle Vista Hillside Mountain Preserve to provide a natural
space that may be developed into a future trailhead. The property will be conveyed by
special warranty deed.
The properties impacted by this project are identified in Attachment A.
Location
N. Black Canyon Highway along the Dixileta Drive alignment.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 164
Attachment A
Property Identification
for Middle Vista Hillside Mountain Preserve
The following unimproved parcels included in this request are identified by the
Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or location.
APN Address / Location
204-23-002B 29301 N. 35th Ave.
204-23-002C 29101 N. 35th Ave.
204-23-002D 29100 N. 31st Ave.
204-23-004A 3201 W. Dixileta Drive
204-23-006B W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-006D W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-006E W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-012 W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-24-986A W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
1 of 1
Page 165
Report
Preserve West of N. Black Canyon Highway Along Dixileta Drive Alignment
(Ordinance S-47789)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept by donation real
property located west of the N. Black Canyon Highway and along the Dixileta Drive
alignment for Mountain Preserve purposes, to be designated as "Mountain Preserve"
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XXVI of the City Charter.
Summary
The property is being developed by Lennar as Middle Vista Hillside Subdivision (KIVA
13-1972 / PLAT 200619) which consists of 228 single-family lots. As part of the
rezoning stipulation, GM Gabrych Family Limited Partnership and/or Lennar Arizona,
Inc., its successor or assigns will donate approximately 117 acres along the west side
of the development for the Middle Vista Hillside Mountain Preserve to provide a natural
space that may be developed into a future trailhead. The property will be conveyed by
special warranty deed.
The properties impacted by this project are identified in Attachment A.
Location
N. Black Canyon Highway along the Dixileta Drive alignment.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 164
Attachment A
Property Identification
for Middle Vista Hillside Mountain Preserve
The following unimproved parcels included in this request are identified by the
Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel number (APN) and the address or location.
APN Address / Location
204-23-002B 29301 N. 35th Ave.
204-23-002C 29101 N. 35th Ave.
204-23-002D 29100 N. 31st Ave.
204-23-004A 3201 W. Dixileta Drive
204-23-006B W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-006D W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-006E W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-23-012 W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
204-24-986A W. Dixileta Drive and N. Black Canyon Highway
1 of 1
Page 165
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Online Access Electronic Books - Requirements Contract - RFA 17-072(A)
(Ordinance S-47792)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144194 with Skillsoft Corporation for the purchase of
Skillsoft Books, for the Library Department. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $51,726.
Summary
This contract offers unlimited, simultaneous access to over 25,000 eBooks focusing on
topics related to business, professional development, human resources, information
technology, as well as thousands of books, research report, book summaries and best
practices for the Library Department. In addition, this resource provides access to the
Leadership Channel Online, an Integrated solution featuring over 4,500 videos. The
Phoenix Public Library is the only public library in Maricopa County to offer these
resources.
In an effort to allow more time to complete a new procurement process and ensure
current City services are not interrupted, it is in the best interest of the City to extend
the current contract.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Aug. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $51,726 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $273,367. Funds are available in the Library Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Dec. 14, 2016.
Page 166
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Page 167
Report
(Ordinance S-47792)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144194 with Skillsoft Corporation for the purchase of
Skillsoft Books, for the Library Department. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $51,726.
Summary
This contract offers unlimited, simultaneous access to over 25,000 eBooks focusing on
topics related to business, professional development, human resources, information
technology, as well as thousands of books, research report, book summaries and best
practices for the Library Department. In addition, this resource provides access to the
Leadership Channel Online, an Integrated solution featuring over 4,500 videos. The
Phoenix Public Library is the only public library in Maricopa County to offer these
resources.
In an effort to allow more time to complete a new procurement process and ensure
current City services are not interrupted, it is in the best interest of the City to extend
the current contract.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Aug. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $51,726 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $273,367. Funds are available in the Library Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Dec. 14, 2016.
Page 166
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Page 167
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Amend Agreement with City of Phoenix Municipal Employees
Association, an Arizona non-profit Corporation to Extend Term (Ordinance S-
47798)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 142954 with City of Phoenix Municipal Employees Association, a non-profit
corporation to extend the lease term for a five-year period. Further request to authorize
the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
487 square feet of office and storage space controlled by the Public Works
Department, on the 2nd floor of the Calvin C. Goode building located at 251 W.
Washington St. The agreement will be amended to extend the term for a five-year
period. Market rent for the space is approximately $6,000 per year. As consideration
for the lease, COPMEA will provide in-kind services and/or donations having a value
equivalent to the market value of the lease, which is $6,000 per year, which is within
the range of market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. The in-kind
services and/or donations will be provided as follows: 1) a dedication for an
improvement to the Parks and Recreation Department for one or more City parks of no
less than $5,500 per year; and 2) gift baskets and other drawing donations for
proceeds to benefit the Community Service Fund Drive, Hands and Hearts Faire of no
less than $500 per year. COPMEA is a long-term tenant in good standing.
Financial Impact
The City will receive in-kind services and donations in the amount of no less than
$6,000 per year.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 142954 (Ordinance S-42414) on April 6, 2016.
Location
251 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Page 168
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
and Finance departments.
Page 169
Report
Association, an Arizona non-profit Corporation to Extend Term (Ordinance S-
47798)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 142954 with City of Phoenix Municipal Employees Association, a non-profit
corporation to extend the lease term for a five-year period. Further request to authorize
the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
487 square feet of office and storage space controlled by the Public Works
Department, on the 2nd floor of the Calvin C. Goode building located at 251 W.
Washington St. The agreement will be amended to extend the term for a five-year
period. Market rent for the space is approximately $6,000 per year. As consideration
for the lease, COPMEA will provide in-kind services and/or donations having a value
equivalent to the market value of the lease, which is $6,000 per year, which is within
the range of market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. The in-kind
services and/or donations will be provided as follows: 1) a dedication for an
improvement to the Parks and Recreation Department for one or more City parks of no
less than $5,500 per year; and 2) gift baskets and other drawing donations for
proceeds to benefit the Community Service Fund Drive, Hands and Hearts Faire of no
less than $500 per year. COPMEA is a long-term tenant in good standing.
Financial Impact
The City will receive in-kind services and donations in the amount of no less than
$6,000 per year.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 142954 (Ordinance S-42414) on April 6, 2016.
Location
251 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Page 168
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
and Finance departments.
Page 169
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Custodial Services IFB 19-076 - Requirements Contract (Ordinance S-47806)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149368 with ISS Facility Services, Inc. for large-scale
event cleaning services for the Phoenix Convention Center Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $475,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Convention Center Department (PCCD) and their custodial service
vendor have mutually agreed to terminate their current custodial service contract,
effective on Nov. 20, 2020. In response to the majority of events being cancelled at
PCCD facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, contracted cleaning services were
discontinued. PCCD is now seeking cleaning services through December 2021 and
has requested to be added as an authorized user of this cleaning service contract with
ISS Facility Services, Inc. This contract will provide pre-event and post-event cleaning
services as the PCCD is underway in reopening for city-wide conventions and large-
scale events. The additional funds will allow PCCD to continue to maintain increased
levels of cleanliness at PCCD theaters and convention center facilities.
Adding PCCD as an authorized user will allow the department additional time to
complete their new procurement for custodial services.
Contract Term
This contract is effective from May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $475,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $6,279,940. Funds are available in the Phoenix Convention
Center Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on May 1, 2019.
Page 170
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.
Page 171
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149368 with ISS Facility Services, Inc. for large-scale
event cleaning services for the Phoenix Convention Center Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $475,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Convention Center Department (PCCD) and their custodial service
vendor have mutually agreed to terminate their current custodial service contract,
effective on Nov. 20, 2020. In response to the majority of events being cancelled at
PCCD facilities due to the COVID-19 pandemic, contracted cleaning services were
discontinued. PCCD is now seeking cleaning services through December 2021 and
has requested to be added as an authorized user of this cleaning service contract with
ISS Facility Services, Inc. This contract will provide pre-event and post-event cleaning
services as the PCCD is underway in reopening for city-wide conventions and large-
scale events. The additional funds will allow PCCD to continue to maintain increased
levels of cleanliness at PCCD theaters and convention center facilities.
Adding PCCD as an authorized user will allow the department additional time to
complete their new procurement for custodial services.
Contract Term
This contract is effective from May 1, 2019 through April 30, 2024.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $475,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $6,279,940. Funds are available in the Phoenix Convention
Center Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on May 1, 2019.
Page 170
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.
Page 171
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Execute Agreements and Grant Necessary Easements for Salt
River Project Recharge Station at Phoenix Zoo (Ordinance S-47809)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to execute agreements
and licenses, and grant easements across City-owned property leased to the Arizona
Zoological Society for the Salt River Project Recharge Station. Additionally, request
authorization to dedicate easements to public use via separate recording instrument.
There is no financial impact to the City.
Summary
The Arizona Zoological Society (Zoo) operates the Phoenix Zoo on City-owned land
(City) under Lease Agreement 106614, effective through May 2058. The City is
reconstructing the parking lots that serve the Phoenix Zoo, and the Zoo will take over
maintenance responsibilities of the parking lots. At no cost to the City and Zoo, Salt
River Project (SRP) will install 20 solar-powered covered parking spaces with 10 dual
port smart electric vehicle chargers in parking lot A (Recharge Station).
The City and/or Zoo will enter into a 10-year agreement with SRP for the Recharge
Station. The agreement may be extended for two, five-year periods at SRP’s sole
discretion. SRP is responsible for all design, installation, equipment costs and
infrastructure upgrades. SRP is responsible for operation, maintenance and electrical
costs of the SRP installed systems during the term of the agreement. The City and/or
Zoo may assume ownership of the Recharge Station, including costs for operation and
maintenance upon termination of the agreement. SRP will decommission and return
the site to a condition as close to original, as reasonably possible, if the City and/or
Zoo declines ownership of the Recharge Station.
The City may be required to execute agreements and licenses, and grant and/or
dedicate easements required by SRP for installation and operation of the Recharge
Station. The City and the Zoo will amend the lease agreement to reflect the Zoo’s
maintenance responsibility of the parking lots.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.
Page 172
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
1) Lease Agreement 106614 (Ordinance S-29900) on April 30, 2003;
2) Lease Agreement Amendment 106614-1 (Ordinance S-36097) on Aug. 17, 2009;
and
3) Lease Agreement Amendment 106614-2 (Ordinance S-40549) on June 3, 2014.
Location
455 N. Galvin Parkway
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 173
Report
River Project Recharge Station at Phoenix Zoo (Ordinance S-47809)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to execute agreements
and licenses, and grant easements across City-owned property leased to the Arizona
Zoological Society for the Salt River Project Recharge Station. Additionally, request
authorization to dedicate easements to public use via separate recording instrument.
There is no financial impact to the City.
Summary
The Arizona Zoological Society (Zoo) operates the Phoenix Zoo on City-owned land
(City) under Lease Agreement 106614, effective through May 2058. The City is
reconstructing the parking lots that serve the Phoenix Zoo, and the Zoo will take over
maintenance responsibilities of the parking lots. At no cost to the City and Zoo, Salt
River Project (SRP) will install 20 solar-powered covered parking spaces with 10 dual
port smart electric vehicle chargers in parking lot A (Recharge Station).
The City and/or Zoo will enter into a 10-year agreement with SRP for the Recharge
Station. The agreement may be extended for two, five-year periods at SRP’s sole
discretion. SRP is responsible for all design, installation, equipment costs and
infrastructure upgrades. SRP is responsible for operation, maintenance and electrical
costs of the SRP installed systems during the term of the agreement. The City and/or
Zoo may assume ownership of the Recharge Station, including costs for operation and
maintenance upon termination of the agreement. SRP will decommission and return
the site to a condition as close to original, as reasonably possible, if the City and/or
Zoo declines ownership of the Recharge Station.
The City may be required to execute agreements and licenses, and grant and/or
dedicate easements required by SRP for installation and operation of the Recharge
Station. The City and the Zoo will amend the lease agreement to reflect the Zoo’s
maintenance responsibility of the parking lots.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.
Page 172
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
1) Lease Agreement 106614 (Ordinance S-29900) on April 30, 2003;
2) Lease Agreement Amendment 106614-1 (Ordinance S-36097) on Aug. 17, 2009;
and
3) Lease Agreement Amendment 106614-2 (Ordinance S-40549) on June 3, 2014.
Location
455 N. Galvin Parkway
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 173
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Annual Expenditure Limitation Report Designee to Arizona Auditor General
(Resolution 21946)
Request City Council approval to designate Assistant Finance Director Kathleen Gitkin
to submit the City's Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Arizona
Auditor General.
Summary
Arizona Revised Statutes 41-1279.07 (E) requires each county, city, town and
community college district to annually provide to the Auditor General by July 31 of
each year the name of the CFO that the governing board designates to submit the
current year's AELR and to certify the accuracy of the report. For 2021 and 2022, the
Auditor General has authorized the City Manager to designate the Assistant Finance
Director to sign the AELR until the next Chief Financial Officer is selected.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 174
Report
(Resolution 21946)
Request City Council approval to designate Assistant Finance Director Kathleen Gitkin
to submit the City's Annual Expenditure Limitation Report (AELR) to the Arizona
Auditor General.
Summary
Arizona Revised Statutes 41-1279.07 (E) requires each county, city, town and
community college district to annually provide to the Auditor General by July 31 of
each year the name of the CFO that the governing board designates to submit the
current year's AELR and to certify the accuracy of the report. For 2021 and 2022, the
Auditor General has authorized the City Manager to designate the Assistant Finance
Director to sign the AELR until the next Chief Financial Officer is selected.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 174
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Civil Service Board Hearing Officers (Ordinance S-47821)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
Harold J Merkow, Mary Stevens, Peter Reinstein, Prudence Lee and Stacy Gabriel, to
provide Hearing Officer services to the Civil Service Board. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. The five-year
aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $310,000.
Summary
These contracts are needed to perform hearing officer duties including conducting
hearings on Civil Service Board appeals as provided in the Personnel Rules,
composing written reports stating findings and conclusions of law, and making
recommendations for the Civil Service Board’s review and approval.
Procurement Information
Request for Qualifications (RFQu) 20-132 was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10, with the intent of establishing a list of qualified vendors
to provide hearing officer services on an as-needed basis for the City. Five offers were
received by the Human Resources Department on April 23, 2021. The Notice of
Solicitation was emailed to 365 Hearing Officers registered in ProcurePHX and other
listings from other government agencies and associations in Arizona. The offers were
scored by a three-person panel on the following criteria: Qualifications and Experience
(350 points), Method of Approach (350 points) and Communication (300 points).
It was the consensus of the evaluation committee to recommend awarding the contract
to Harold J Merkow, Mary Stevens, Peter Reinstein, Prudence Lee and Stacy Gabriel.
The following are the scores:
Prudence Lee - 965
Harold J Merkow - 935
Mary Stevens - 875
Stacy Gabriel - 860
Peter Reinstein - 535
The Human Resources Director recommends that the offers from the above vendors
Page 175
be accepted as responsive and responsible offers that are most advantageous to the
City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term shall begin on or about Aug. 2, 2021.
Financial Impact
The five-year aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $310,000. Funds are
available in the Human Resources Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.
Page 176
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
Harold J Merkow, Mary Stevens, Peter Reinstein, Prudence Lee and Stacy Gabriel, to
provide Hearing Officer services to the Civil Service Board. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse funds related to this item. The five-year
aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $310,000.
Summary
These contracts are needed to perform hearing officer duties including conducting
hearings on Civil Service Board appeals as provided in the Personnel Rules,
composing written reports stating findings and conclusions of law, and making
recommendations for the Civil Service Board’s review and approval.
Procurement Information
Request for Qualifications (RFQu) 20-132 was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10, with the intent of establishing a list of qualified vendors
to provide hearing officer services on an as-needed basis for the City. Five offers were
received by the Human Resources Department on April 23, 2021. The Notice of
Solicitation was emailed to 365 Hearing Officers registered in ProcurePHX and other
listings from other government agencies and associations in Arizona. The offers were
scored by a three-person panel on the following criteria: Qualifications and Experience
(350 points), Method of Approach (350 points) and Communication (300 points).
It was the consensus of the evaluation committee to recommend awarding the contract
to Harold J Merkow, Mary Stevens, Peter Reinstein, Prudence Lee and Stacy Gabriel.
The following are the scores:
Prudence Lee - 965
Harold J Merkow - 935
Mary Stevens - 875
Stacy Gabriel - 860
Peter Reinstein - 535
The Human Resources Director recommends that the offers from the above vendors
Page 175
be accepted as responsive and responsible offers that are most advantageous to the
City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term shall begin on or about Aug. 2, 2021.
Financial Impact
The five-year aggregate value of all contracts will not exceed $310,000. Funds are
available in the Human Resources Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Human
Resources Department.
Page 176
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Enterprise License Agreement for GIS Mapping - Amendment (Ordinance S-
47794)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148203 with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., to provide
additional time and funding for the GIS Mapping Enterprise License Agreement for the
Information Technology Services Department in support of various departments.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures authorized in this amendment will not exceed
$2,575,350.
Summary
This request is to extend the term of the existing Enterprise License Agreement (ELA)
and for the funds needed for those additional years. Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI), Inc. is the City's provider of GIS software used by the Information
Technology Services, Aviation, Fire, Police, Street Transportation, Water Services and
other departments to maintain critical infrastructure and public safety information.
The mapping solution allows departments to generate maps and mapping applications,
and storage geospatial data in a centralized spatial database hosted by the
Information Technology Services Department. The ELA provides City GIS users
unlimited access to the ESRI products identified in the agreement, including
maintenance on all software for the term of the agreement. Based on the considerable
number of user licenses deployed throughout the City, entering into an ELA provides
benefits, value, and cost savings to the City. Benefits include a lower cost-per-unit for
licensed software, substantially reduced administrative expenses, maintenance, and
the flexibility to deploy software when and where needed.
Contract Term
The term of this agreement will be extended through July 29, 2024.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for this agreement was for an expenditure not to exceed
$1,515,100. This amendment will increase the authorization for the agreement by an
additional $2,575,350 (including taxes), for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value
Page 177
of $4,090,450.
Funding is available in the various departments’ budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 148203 (Ordinance S-44741) on June 6, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 178
Report
47794)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148203 with Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., to provide
additional time and funding for the GIS Mapping Enterprise License Agreement for the
Information Technology Services Department in support of various departments.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures authorized in this amendment will not exceed
$2,575,350.
Summary
This request is to extend the term of the existing Enterprise License Agreement (ELA)
and for the funds needed for those additional years. Environmental Systems Research
Institute (ESRI), Inc. is the City's provider of GIS software used by the Information
Technology Services, Aviation, Fire, Police, Street Transportation, Water Services and
other departments to maintain critical infrastructure and public safety information.
The mapping solution allows departments to generate maps and mapping applications,
and storage geospatial data in a centralized spatial database hosted by the
Information Technology Services Department. The ELA provides City GIS users
unlimited access to the ESRI products identified in the agreement, including
maintenance on all software for the term of the agreement. Based on the considerable
number of user licenses deployed throughout the City, entering into an ELA provides
benefits, value, and cost savings to the City. Benefits include a lower cost-per-unit for
licensed software, substantially reduced administrative expenses, maintenance, and
the flexibility to deploy software when and where needed.
Contract Term
The term of this agreement will be extended through July 29, 2024.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for this agreement was for an expenditure not to exceed
$1,515,100. This amendment will increase the authorization for the agreement by an
additional $2,575,350 (including taxes), for a new total not-to-exceed agreement value
Page 177
of $4,090,450.
Funding is available in the various departments’ budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 148203 (Ordinance S-44741) on June 6, 2018.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 178
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Various Software License Agreements (Ordinance S-47814)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary
software agreements with: Formstack, LLC; Mixmode, Inc.; RedSeal, Inc.; and RSA
Security LLC, and further request to grant an exception to the indemnification, liability,
and legal redress provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42-18. There is no financial
impact related to this request, as funding for the agreements has already been
approved as part of the State of Arizona Cooperative for Software Value-Added
Reseller Services agreements.
Summary
The City uses the Software Value-Added Resellers Cooperative contracts for
departments citywide to purchase software and annual software support and
maintenance. Formstack, LLC, Mixmode, Inc., RedSeal, Inc., and RSA Security LLC
offer software and related services needed by the City for electronic forms and IT
Security. This request is for approval to enter into the vendors’ license agreements,
requiring an exception to code provisions in section 42-18. In negotiating these
agreements, it has become clear that the software providers cannot fully indemnify the
City nor accept unlimited liability. The vendors' position aligns to IT industry practices.
Granting an exception would authorize the City to negotiate indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that best protect the City while still being acceptable
to the vendors.
Mixmode, Inc., RedSeal, Inc., and RSA Security LLC provide security software to
protect the City's systems, such as security monitoring and multi-factor authentication
solutions.
The software agreement with Formstack, LLC will provide a versatile software solution
which will replace the City’s current in-house eForms system. The Formstack solution
will allow the City to build no-code forms to gather customer data and automate tasks
such as the City Clerk Department’s Virtual Request to Speak process, the Budget and
Research Department’s Community Budget Hearing forms and similar processes.
Enhancing the electronic form system is vital to the business needs of the City and
provides enhanced digital services to residents.
Page 179
Contract Term
The term of the agreements under the City's Cooperative Purchasing Agreement for
Software Value-Added Reseller Services through the State of Arizona Cooperative is
through April 7, 2022. All software purchases will occur during this period. Contract
term provisions within the software agreements may extend beyond the term of the
cooperative agreement.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact related to this request, as funding for the agreements has
already been approved as part of the State of Arizona Cooperative for Software Value-
Added Reseller Services agreements.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Software Value-Added Reseller Services Cooperative Agreement 144228
(Ordinance S-43077) with CDW on Dec. 14, 2016; and
· Software Value-Added Reseller Services Cooperative Agreement 151721
(Ordinance S-46331) with SHI on Jan. 29, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 180
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary
software agreements with: Formstack, LLC; Mixmode, Inc.; RedSeal, Inc.; and RSA
Security LLC, and further request to grant an exception to the indemnification, liability,
and legal redress provisions of Phoenix City Code section 42-18. There is no financial
impact related to this request, as funding for the agreements has already been
approved as part of the State of Arizona Cooperative for Software Value-Added
Reseller Services agreements.
Summary
The City uses the Software Value-Added Resellers Cooperative contracts for
departments citywide to purchase software and annual software support and
maintenance. Formstack, LLC, Mixmode, Inc., RedSeal, Inc., and RSA Security LLC
offer software and related services needed by the City for electronic forms and IT
Security. This request is for approval to enter into the vendors’ license agreements,
requiring an exception to code provisions in section 42-18. In negotiating these
agreements, it has become clear that the software providers cannot fully indemnify the
City nor accept unlimited liability. The vendors' position aligns to IT industry practices.
Granting an exception would authorize the City to negotiate indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that best protect the City while still being acceptable
to the vendors.
Mixmode, Inc., RedSeal, Inc., and RSA Security LLC provide security software to
protect the City's systems, such as security monitoring and multi-factor authentication
solutions.
The software agreement with Formstack, LLC will provide a versatile software solution
which will replace the City’s current in-house eForms system. The Formstack solution
will allow the City to build no-code forms to gather customer data and automate tasks
such as the City Clerk Department’s Virtual Request to Speak process, the Budget and
Research Department’s Community Budget Hearing forms and similar processes.
Enhancing the electronic form system is vital to the business needs of the City and
provides enhanced digital services to residents.
Page 179
Contract Term
The term of the agreements under the City's Cooperative Purchasing Agreement for
Software Value-Added Reseller Services through the State of Arizona Cooperative is
through April 7, 2022. All software purchases will occur during this period. Contract
term provisions within the software agreements may extend beyond the term of the
cooperative agreement.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact related to this request, as funding for the agreements has
already been approved as part of the State of Arizona Cooperative for Software Value-
Added Reseller Services agreements.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Software Value-Added Reseller Services Cooperative Agreement 144228
(Ordinance S-43077) with CDW on Dec. 14, 2016; and
· Software Value-Added Reseller Services Cooperative Agreement 151721
(Ordinance S-46331) with SHI on Jan. 29, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 180
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Professional Services for IT Project Management and Business Analysis
Support - Amendment (Ordinance S-47817)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to authorize additional
expenditures under the established agreements with: CE Wilson Consulting, LLC
Contract 144530; Envision, LLC Contract 144528; IntraEdge, Inc., Contract 144532;
Kolla Soft, Inc., Contract 144531; and Scott Business Group, LLC Contract 144533 for
professional Information Technology (IT) project management and business analysis
services on an as-needed basis for the Information Technology Services Department
in support of various departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures authorized in this
amendment will not exceed $1.6 million.
Summary
The City utilizes contract project managers and business analysts to augment staff.
This model provides flexibility and allows the City to select project managers and
business analysts with the skill set and experience specific to the IT project being
undertaken. The number of citywide IT projects vary over time and staff in these roles
are needed to ensure that projects meet the necessary business requirements, project
scope, and are completed on time and on budget.
Recently, the ability to utilize these contracts allowed the Information Technology
Services Department to contract with project managers and business analysts to
expeditiously support critical initiatives such as enhancements to the citywide cyber
security programs, Fire and Police department critical system modernization efforts,
myPHX311 initiative and the citywide Learning Management System. This request is
for additional funding to allow the City to support upcoming IT project requests and
needs, and avoid disruption to key initiatives.
Contract Term
The term of these agreements is through Jan. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for these agreements was for an expenditure not to exceed $5
million. This amendment will increase the authorization for these agreements by an
Page 181
additional $1.6 million for a new total not to exceed $6.6 million. Funding is available in
various departments’ budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Ordinance S-43212 for these agreements on Feb. 1, 2017.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 182
Report
Support - Amendment (Ordinance S-47817)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to authorize additional
expenditures under the established agreements with: CE Wilson Consulting, LLC
Contract 144530; Envision, LLC Contract 144528; IntraEdge, Inc., Contract 144532;
Kolla Soft, Inc., Contract 144531; and Scott Business Group, LLC Contract 144533 for
professional Information Technology (IT) project management and business analysis
services on an as-needed basis for the Information Technology Services Department
in support of various departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures authorized in this
amendment will not exceed $1.6 million.
Summary
The City utilizes contract project managers and business analysts to augment staff.
This model provides flexibility and allows the City to select project managers and
business analysts with the skill set and experience specific to the IT project being
undertaken. The number of citywide IT projects vary over time and staff in these roles
are needed to ensure that projects meet the necessary business requirements, project
scope, and are completed on time and on budget.
Recently, the ability to utilize these contracts allowed the Information Technology
Services Department to contract with project managers and business analysts to
expeditiously support critical initiatives such as enhancements to the citywide cyber
security programs, Fire and Police department critical system modernization efforts,
myPHX311 initiative and the citywide Learning Management System. This request is
for additional funding to allow the City to support upcoming IT project requests and
needs, and avoid disruption to key initiatives.
Contract Term
The term of these agreements is through Jan. 31, 2022.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for these agreements was for an expenditure not to exceed $5
million. This amendment will increase the authorization for these agreements by an
Page 181
additional $1.6 million for a new total not to exceed $6.6 million. Funding is available in
various departments’ budgets.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Ordinance S-43212 for these agreements on Feb. 1, 2017.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Toni Maccarone and the Information
Technology Services Department.
Page 182
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Software Licensing, Maintenance and Technical Support For Case Management
System (Ordinance S-47807)
The Phoenix Municipal Court requests authorization to purchase software licensing,
maintenance and technical support from Prolifics, Inc. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement value will
not exceed $17,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Municipal Court leverages an internally developed and supported case
management system that relies on Panther software provided by Prolifics, Inc. It is
critical for the Court to obtain this software licensing, maintenance and technical
support as not doing so would be a risk to the Court’s project to upgrade its case
management system (iCMS). The Panther software is necessary to support iCMS,
which is the Court's primary, mission-critical business application.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of a Special Circumstance Without Competition Determination Memo citing
Prolifics, Inc. as the only known distributor and provider of Panther software, upgrades,
maintenance and technical support, which the Court currently uses in its case
management system.
Financial Impact
Expenditures for this purchase will not exceed $17,000.
Funding is available in the Phoenix Municipal Court's budget.
Responsible Department
The item is recommended by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III and Deputy City
Manager Karen Peters.
Page 183
Report
System (Ordinance S-47807)
The Phoenix Municipal Court requests authorization to purchase software licensing,
maintenance and technical support from Prolifics, Inc. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement value will
not exceed $17,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Municipal Court leverages an internally developed and supported case
management system that relies on Panther software provided by Prolifics, Inc. It is
critical for the Court to obtain this software licensing, maintenance and technical
support as not doing so would be a risk to the Court’s project to upgrade its case
management system (iCMS). The Panther software is necessary to support iCMS,
which is the Court's primary, mission-critical business application.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of a Special Circumstance Without Competition Determination Memo citing
Prolifics, Inc. as the only known distributor and provider of Panther software, upgrades,
maintenance and technical support, which the Court currently uses in its case
management system.
Financial Impact
Expenditures for this purchase will not exceed $17,000.
Funding is available in the Phoenix Municipal Court's budget.
Responsible Department
The item is recommended by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III and Deputy City
Manager Karen Peters.
Page 183
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Tohono O'odham Nation Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-47795)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $470,973.42 in new funding from the
Tohono O'odham Nation under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds as directed
by the Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham
Nation, towards the following:
City Applications
· Community and Economic Development Department: $50,000 for the Reinvest
Maryvale Campaign, which will attract meaningful investment and development
interest in the Maryvale Village, which will provide educational, recreational and
economic opportunities to the residents and visitors of Maryvale.
· Parks and Recreation Department: $15,300 for the FitPHX, Zero Waste Cooking
Program, which will teach community members how to prepare zero waste meals at
home.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $76,189.42 for the purchase of a mini all-terrain
ambulance capable of responding to medical emergencies during special events
where access is limited due to crowd size or event footprint.
Non-Profit Applications
· Ballet Arizona: $6,450 for the Hoop Dance Program, which will enable Ballet
Arizona to engage 20-25 Native American youth (ages 8-12) in the Hoop Dance
Program, featuring introductory dance classes anchored in not only Native
American history, culture, and traditions, but also those of ballet.
· Cancer Support Community Arizona: $30,000 for the Improving Health Outcomes
for Uninsured and Under-Insured Arizona Cancer Patients program, which will
promote increased access to medical and mental health care for Arizona's
uninsured and under-served cancer patients, it will decrease barriers to care,
reduce health care inequities, and promote optimal health outcomes.
Page 184
· Creighton Community Foundation: $35,000 for the Creighton Community Gardens
Program, which will seek to transform the local food system to bring inclusive,
equitable, and participatory foods access to the most vulnerable communities.
· Daring Adventures: $43,034 for the Collaborative Recreation Program, which will
offer a variety of supportive services and recreational services for people of all
abilities.
· Life More Abundantly: $15,000 for the Pregnancy Testing and Ultrasound Program,
which will support the Nursing and Client Services staff in the Pregnancy Resource
Center.
· Neighborhood Ministries: $30,000 for the Suenos Youth Empowerment Center
which will bridge the digital divide in inner-city Phoenix while increasing academic
retention, promotions, aspirations, and career opportunities to equip vulnerable
youth to become healthy, responsible and independent adults.
· Seed Spot: $50,000 for technical assistance programming which ranges from short
form workshops, two day Launch Camps to intensive six week training programs for
underrepresented entrepreneurs and small business owners.
· Southwest Center: $70,000 for HIV prevention services to ensure immediate and
barrier-free medical treatment is available and to promote services to high-risk
community members.
· USO Arizona: $25,000 for the USO Arizona operations and programs, which
includes youth and family strengthening programs and the necessary expenses to
provide basic needs supplies, event food, activity kit materials, COVID-19, and
other sanitation supplies for USO centers, and Mobile USO program delivery, and
costs associated with facilitating online family support programs, logistical support,
marketing, and data tracking and evaluation.
· Valley of the Sun YMCA: $25,000 for Childcare and Preschool Programs which will
be provided to children from low-income families in Phoenix.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The
Tohono O'odham Nation will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general purpose funds are
required. Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of
those funds.
Page 185
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 186
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply, accept, and if
awarded, enter into related agreements for up to $470,973.42 in new funding from the
Tohono O'odham Nation under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds as directed
by the Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
If awarded, these monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham
Nation, towards the following:
City Applications
· Community and Economic Development Department: $50,000 for the Reinvest
Maryvale Campaign, which will attract meaningful investment and development
interest in the Maryvale Village, which will provide educational, recreational and
economic opportunities to the residents and visitors of Maryvale.
· Parks and Recreation Department: $15,300 for the FitPHX, Zero Waste Cooking
Program, which will teach community members how to prepare zero waste meals at
home.
· Phoenix Fire Department: $76,189.42 for the purchase of a mini all-terrain
ambulance capable of responding to medical emergencies during special events
where access is limited due to crowd size or event footprint.
Non-Profit Applications
· Ballet Arizona: $6,450 for the Hoop Dance Program, which will enable Ballet
Arizona to engage 20-25 Native American youth (ages 8-12) in the Hoop Dance
Program, featuring introductory dance classes anchored in not only Native
American history, culture, and traditions, but also those of ballet.
· Cancer Support Community Arizona: $30,000 for the Improving Health Outcomes
for Uninsured and Under-Insured Arizona Cancer Patients program, which will
promote increased access to medical and mental health care for Arizona's
uninsured and under-served cancer patients, it will decrease barriers to care,
reduce health care inequities, and promote optimal health outcomes.
Page 184
· Creighton Community Foundation: $35,000 for the Creighton Community Gardens
Program, which will seek to transform the local food system to bring inclusive,
equitable, and participatory foods access to the most vulnerable communities.
· Daring Adventures: $43,034 for the Collaborative Recreation Program, which will
offer a variety of supportive services and recreational services for people of all
abilities.
· Life More Abundantly: $15,000 for the Pregnancy Testing and Ultrasound Program,
which will support the Nursing and Client Services staff in the Pregnancy Resource
Center.
· Neighborhood Ministries: $30,000 for the Suenos Youth Empowerment Center
which will bridge the digital divide in inner-city Phoenix while increasing academic
retention, promotions, aspirations, and career opportunities to equip vulnerable
youth to become healthy, responsible and independent adults.
· Seed Spot: $50,000 for technical assistance programming which ranges from short
form workshops, two day Launch Camps to intensive six week training programs for
underrepresented entrepreneurs and small business owners.
· Southwest Center: $70,000 for HIV prevention services to ensure immediate and
barrier-free medical treatment is available and to promote services to high-risk
community members.
· USO Arizona: $25,000 for the USO Arizona operations and programs, which
includes youth and family strengthening programs and the necessary expenses to
provide basic needs supplies, event food, activity kit materials, COVID-19, and
other sanitation supplies for USO centers, and Mobile USO program delivery, and
costs associated with facilitating online family support programs, logistical support,
marketing, and data tracking and evaluation.
· Valley of the Sun YMCA: $25,000 for Childcare and Preschool Programs which will
be provided to children from low-income families in Phoenix.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The
Tohono O'odham Nation will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general purpose funds are
required. Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of
those funds.
Page 185
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 186
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Add Positions, Make Other Process Improvements to Address Current
Construction Activity Levels in the Planning and Development Department
(Ordinance S-47818)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to undertake six broad actions
to increase development capacity to address current construction activity levels. Staff
requests to add 34 new positions, increase on-call plan review and inspections
contract capacity, implement short-term process improvements, and increase staff and
customer training efforts around key review/submittal issues. In addition, staff
proposes to develop internship and apprenticeship programs to help address long-
term employment necessities of the Planning and Development Department (PDD).
Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract
through Maricopa County (Serial 190178) with Glancy Consultants LLC to provide
strategic consulting services for the Planning and Development Department. The
aggregate contract value will not exceed $50,000. Further request the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. No General Fund dollars are requested to
support this request; Development Services funds are available.
Summary
Development activity in the City of Phoenix has continued to increase over the past
year as the local economy continues to strongly attract private investment. Phoenix
has been the fastest growing city in the nation for the last five years according to the
U.S. Census Bureau. During that time period, PDD planned, permitted, and oversaw
construction of $22 billion of private construction that provides the physical places that
enable our residents to live, work and play within the City. At the conclusion of Fiscal
Year 2020/21 PDD will have issued approximately 47,000 total construction permits.
This figure is about 5,000 fewer permits than were issued prior to the Great Recession
in 2005/06. PDD will have completed approximately 275,000 inspections during this
last fiscal year, compared to 352,046 inspections in 2005/06.
As outlined in Attachment A, plan review and permitting activity in several areas is
approaching levels not seen since the housing and construction boom of the mid
2000s. PDD has continued to add staff as well as utilize innovation, efficiency
improvements, technology and contract staff to meet the increasing demands of our
customers. However, there still remains a need to take additional steps to address
Page 187
current development activity. Staff requests approval to take the following actions:
1. Add 34 new positions in key areas experiencing review backlogs.
2. Increase on-call plan review and inspections contract capacity.
3. Implement staff-identified short-term process improvements.
4. Hire a consultant to develop mid/long-term process improvements.
5. Increase staff and customer training efforts around key review/submittal issues to
increase efficiencies.
6. Develop internship and apprenticeship programs to help address long-term
employment necessities.
The requested positions, as outlined in Attachment B, are in areas of the department
that have been most impacted by the increase in construction activity, specifically in
development plan review and inspections. This includes multiple positions to more
quickly screen and route plans submitted electronically, which now account for 80
percent of all plans submitted. The department also will be adding human resources
positions to expedite recruitment and hiring for these jobs, which is especially
challenging in an overall tight labor market and magnified by the current construction
boom. This targeted increase in staff will help ensure that customers/stakeholders can
continue to move projects forward quickly and efficiently.
In addition to full-time positions, PDD also proposes an increase of up to 33 percent in
the budget for "on-call" contractors in several areas to add peak plan review and
inspections capacity. This will be done under an existing city contract managed by the
Street Transportation Department and will be presented to the City Council for
authorization in the first Formal meeting after the summer break.
In addition, to new positions, PDD continues to analyze plan review and permitting
processes to find efficiencies, streamline intake and routing, and implement new tools.
In the short term, staff is revising the process for initial intake of electronic plans to
reduce submittal time frames. Staff also is adding screening questions for applicants
during initial submittal to allow for quicker routing to the appropriate section. The
current electronic plan review system is not integrated with the department's 25-year-
old primary business application. However, new software, including the first release of
the new SHAPE PHX system, is scheduled to come online in August, which will
streamline electronic plan review, particularly for residential reviews. New
administrative positions will help to train staff and integrate the new system into our
plan review process. Finally, staff will enhance recruitment efforts to more aggressively
identify, interview and screen candidates for crucial engineering technician positions.
PDD also is hiring a consultant to complete an in-depth analysis of current plan review
Page 188
and permitting processes and recommend improvements to streamline plan review
and inspection turnaround times. The consultant is on a current Maricopa County
contract that the City can utilize and he is very familiar with City processes and can
conduct the analysis quickly. The results of the work will be brought forward in the fall
of this year.
Staff also is identifying common submittal errors to develop training "how to" videos
and information sheets to better explain submittal requirements to new professionals
working in the field. In addition, staff will survey existing customers to identify
consistency concerns and develop new staff trainings based upon information learned
from these surveys.
Finally, PDD will implement an apprenticeship program for the department that will
initially focus on a few inspection positions but may expand to other key technical
positions in the future. The department also will bring back a formal internship program
that was eliminated at the start of the Great Recession. Additional details on the
apprenticeship program and exact number of positions will come back to City Council
on the first Formal agenda after the break.
Financial Impact
The estimated cost for the proposed new positions for the FY 2022 is $3.14 million.
Additionally, request authority to enter into a contract with Glancy Consultants LLC to
review and recommend development process improvements and spend up to $50,000
to satisfy the terms of the contract. Separate City Council actions including $2.5 million
in additional on-call contracts and the additional costs associated with the under
development apprenticeship program will be requested at the August 25, 2021 Formal
Meeting. No General Funds are requested. Development Services Funds in the PDD
operating budget are available to support these requests.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 189
NEW Single Family Permits Issued
5000 5,397 Projected
4,498
Page 190 3500 3,838 3,758
3,554
2,531
2000 2,479
1500 1,724
1,667
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July - April
PRE-APPLICATION LOGINS
600 600 Projected
Page 191
200 228
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July - April
TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED
50,000
47,094 Projected
45,000
40,000 44,533
44,246 43,330
42,696
42,384
35,000
Page 192
37,523
30,000 34,255 39,245
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 4
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July-April
TOTAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED
300,000 270,265
270,000
240,000
210,000
Page 193
180,000
150,000
120,000
223,488 239,059 261,023 272,514 225,221
164,904 167,474 201,105
90,000
60,000
30,000
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July-April
ELECTRONIC PLAN SUBMITTALS
EPR ELIGIBLE SUBMITTALS
FY 2020-2021 FY 20/21 Paper Plans: 1,863
PAPER
21%
Page 194
EPR
79%
Electronic Plan Review Submittals: 6
FY 18/19: 1,899 FY 19/20: 4,734 FY 20/21 thru Feb: 7,111
ATTACHMENT B - REQUESTED POSITIONS
PDD Additional Position Requests July 2021
Title Division - Section Team What Does this Position address?
Human Resources Supervisor needed to provide
Management management/leadership commensurate with the size of the
HR Supervisor Human Resources
Services Planning and Development Department. Prior to the Great
Recesstion, the department had an HR Supervisor.
Additional Senior Human Resources Analyst needed for
Management proactive approach to talent acquisition/recruitment of hard to
Senior HR Analyst Human Resources
Services fill positions and to assist current analyst with very high volume
of other recruitment related work (significant admin workload).
Additional Human Resources Aide to support increasing volume
Management
HR Aide Human Resources of employment-related transactions because of increased
Services
department staff.
Principal Engineering Tech
Electronic Plan Review (EPR) volume and transition to new EPR
system in a two-phased approach that requires working in two
Senior Engineering Techs
Management Payments and separate systems for up to two years. These EPR positions will
(2 positions)
Services Submittals more quickly screen and route for review plans submitted
electronically, which now accounts for 80 percent of all plans
Engineering Techs
submitted.
(4 positions)
Planner I Add two Planner I positions to be assigned to EPR pre-log duties
Planning Site Planning
(2 positions) and 5-Day site plan reviews.
Development To assist in the review of residential grading and drainage as-
Principal Engineering Tech Civil Inspection
Inspections built plans and investigate flooding complaints.
Civil Inspector II
The five civil inspector positions will create a third civil area
(3 positions)
team that is necessary to address increased work volume, the
Development
Civil Inspection TSMC project timeline, increased complexity of civil
Civil Inspections Field Supv Inspections
improvements/flooding issues as well as the heightened
importance of trees due to the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
Civil Inspector III
Development Commercial
Structural Inspector II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Development Commercial
Electrical Inspector II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Development Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention Specialist II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Planning & Dev Team Leader
Architect To create a new major commercial team to better manage
Development Commercial
existing and new projects to meet critical review deadlines and
Plan Review Plan Review
Fire Protection Engineer issue permits.
Electrical Plans Engineer
Page 195
Title Division - Section Team What Does this Position address?
To assist the minor commercial team with pre-log review,
Development Commercial
Building Code Examiner building plan review and processing of self-certified building
Plan Review Plan Review
plans.
To assist in reducing turnaround times for residential building
Development Residential
Construction Permit Specialist II plans, responding to customer inquiries and pre-log of
Plan Review Plan Review
residential plans.
To provide supervisory support over team responsible for
Development Residential
Chief Engineering Tech*U7 processing of single-family home permits, pool permits, fence
Plan Review Plan Review
permits and other miscellaneous residential permits.
Senior Engineering Tech Development Residential To assist with residential plan review, primarily preparing and
(2 positions) Plan Review Plan Review processing plot plan submittals.
To assist in the timely review of preapplication and preliminary
Development Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention Specialist II site review plans, reduce turnaround times and provide site plan
Plan Review Plan Review
review assistance for some major projects.
Historic Residential Address preapplication backlog for Certificates of
Planner II
Preservation Plan Review Appropriateness to improve development response times.
To provide additional administrative and site plan review
FT Admin Intern
Planning Site Planning support, conduct research on difficult projects, and provide a
(2 positions)
pool of future planner candidates.
Total Staff Requested: 34
Page 196
Report
Construction Activity Levels in the Planning and Development Department
(Ordinance S-47818)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to undertake six broad actions
to increase development capacity to address current construction activity levels. Staff
requests to add 34 new positions, increase on-call plan review and inspections
contract capacity, implement short-term process improvements, and increase staff and
customer training efforts around key review/submittal issues. In addition, staff
proposes to develop internship and apprenticeship programs to help address long-
term employment necessities of the Planning and Development Department (PDD).
Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract
through Maricopa County (Serial 190178) with Glancy Consultants LLC to provide
strategic consulting services for the Planning and Development Department. The
aggregate contract value will not exceed $50,000. Further request the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. No General Fund dollars are requested to
support this request; Development Services funds are available.
Summary
Development activity in the City of Phoenix has continued to increase over the past
year as the local economy continues to strongly attract private investment. Phoenix
has been the fastest growing city in the nation for the last five years according to the
U.S. Census Bureau. During that time period, PDD planned, permitted, and oversaw
construction of $22 billion of private construction that provides the physical places that
enable our residents to live, work and play within the City. At the conclusion of Fiscal
Year 2020/21 PDD will have issued approximately 47,000 total construction permits.
This figure is about 5,000 fewer permits than were issued prior to the Great Recession
in 2005/06. PDD will have completed approximately 275,000 inspections during this
last fiscal year, compared to 352,046 inspections in 2005/06.
As outlined in Attachment A, plan review and permitting activity in several areas is
approaching levels not seen since the housing and construction boom of the mid
2000s. PDD has continued to add staff as well as utilize innovation, efficiency
improvements, technology and contract staff to meet the increasing demands of our
customers. However, there still remains a need to take additional steps to address
Page 187
current development activity. Staff requests approval to take the following actions:
1. Add 34 new positions in key areas experiencing review backlogs.
2. Increase on-call plan review and inspections contract capacity.
3. Implement staff-identified short-term process improvements.
4. Hire a consultant to develop mid/long-term process improvements.
5. Increase staff and customer training efforts around key review/submittal issues to
increase efficiencies.
6. Develop internship and apprenticeship programs to help address long-term
employment necessities.
The requested positions, as outlined in Attachment B, are in areas of the department
that have been most impacted by the increase in construction activity, specifically in
development plan review and inspections. This includes multiple positions to more
quickly screen and route plans submitted electronically, which now account for 80
percent of all plans submitted. The department also will be adding human resources
positions to expedite recruitment and hiring for these jobs, which is especially
challenging in an overall tight labor market and magnified by the current construction
boom. This targeted increase in staff will help ensure that customers/stakeholders can
continue to move projects forward quickly and efficiently.
In addition to full-time positions, PDD also proposes an increase of up to 33 percent in
the budget for "on-call" contractors in several areas to add peak plan review and
inspections capacity. This will be done under an existing city contract managed by the
Street Transportation Department and will be presented to the City Council for
authorization in the first Formal meeting after the summer break.
In addition, to new positions, PDD continues to analyze plan review and permitting
processes to find efficiencies, streamline intake and routing, and implement new tools.
In the short term, staff is revising the process for initial intake of electronic plans to
reduce submittal time frames. Staff also is adding screening questions for applicants
during initial submittal to allow for quicker routing to the appropriate section. The
current electronic plan review system is not integrated with the department's 25-year-
old primary business application. However, new software, including the first release of
the new SHAPE PHX system, is scheduled to come online in August, which will
streamline electronic plan review, particularly for residential reviews. New
administrative positions will help to train staff and integrate the new system into our
plan review process. Finally, staff will enhance recruitment efforts to more aggressively
identify, interview and screen candidates for crucial engineering technician positions.
PDD also is hiring a consultant to complete an in-depth analysis of current plan review
Page 188
and permitting processes and recommend improvements to streamline plan review
and inspection turnaround times. The consultant is on a current Maricopa County
contract that the City can utilize and he is very familiar with City processes and can
conduct the analysis quickly. The results of the work will be brought forward in the fall
of this year.
Staff also is identifying common submittal errors to develop training "how to" videos
and information sheets to better explain submittal requirements to new professionals
working in the field. In addition, staff will survey existing customers to identify
consistency concerns and develop new staff trainings based upon information learned
from these surveys.
Finally, PDD will implement an apprenticeship program for the department that will
initially focus on a few inspection positions but may expand to other key technical
positions in the future. The department also will bring back a formal internship program
that was eliminated at the start of the Great Recession. Additional details on the
apprenticeship program and exact number of positions will come back to City Council
on the first Formal agenda after the break.
Financial Impact
The estimated cost for the proposed new positions for the FY 2022 is $3.14 million.
Additionally, request authority to enter into a contract with Glancy Consultants LLC to
review and recommend development process improvements and spend up to $50,000
to satisfy the terms of the contract. Separate City Council actions including $2.5 million
in additional on-call contracts and the additional costs associated with the under
development apprenticeship program will be requested at the August 25, 2021 Formal
Meeting. No General Funds are requested. Development Services Funds in the PDD
operating budget are available to support these requests.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 189
NEW Single Family Permits Issued
5000 5,397 Projected
4,498
Page 190 3500 3,838 3,758
3,554
2,531
2000 2,479
1500 1,724
1,667
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July - April
PRE-APPLICATION LOGINS
600 600 Projected
Page 191
200 228
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July - April
TOTAL PERMITS ISSUED
50,000
47,094 Projected
45,000
40,000 44,533
44,246 43,330
42,696
42,384
35,000
Page 192
37,523
30,000 34,255 39,245
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 4
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July-April
TOTAL INSPECTIONS COMPLETED
300,000 270,265
270,000
240,000
210,000
Page 193
180,000
150,000
120,000
223,488 239,059 261,023 272,514 225,221
164,904 167,474 201,105
90,000
60,000
30,000
Fiscal Yr: 13/14 14/15 15/16 16/17 17/18 18/19 19/20 20/21 to date
July-April
ELECTRONIC PLAN SUBMITTALS
EPR ELIGIBLE SUBMITTALS
FY 2020-2021 FY 20/21 Paper Plans: 1,863
PAPER
21%
Page 194
EPR
79%
Electronic Plan Review Submittals: 6
FY 18/19: 1,899 FY 19/20: 4,734 FY 20/21 thru Feb: 7,111
ATTACHMENT B - REQUESTED POSITIONS
PDD Additional Position Requests July 2021
Title Division - Section Team What Does this Position address?
Human Resources Supervisor needed to provide
Management management/leadership commensurate with the size of the
HR Supervisor Human Resources
Services Planning and Development Department. Prior to the Great
Recesstion, the department had an HR Supervisor.
Additional Senior Human Resources Analyst needed for
Management proactive approach to talent acquisition/recruitment of hard to
Senior HR Analyst Human Resources
Services fill positions and to assist current analyst with very high volume
of other recruitment related work (significant admin workload).
Additional Human Resources Aide to support increasing volume
Management
HR Aide Human Resources of employment-related transactions because of increased
Services
department staff.
Principal Engineering Tech
Electronic Plan Review (EPR) volume and transition to new EPR
system in a two-phased approach that requires working in two
Senior Engineering Techs
Management Payments and separate systems for up to two years. These EPR positions will
(2 positions)
Services Submittals more quickly screen and route for review plans submitted
electronically, which now accounts for 80 percent of all plans
Engineering Techs
submitted.
(4 positions)
Planner I Add two Planner I positions to be assigned to EPR pre-log duties
Planning Site Planning
(2 positions) and 5-Day site plan reviews.
Development To assist in the review of residential grading and drainage as-
Principal Engineering Tech Civil Inspection
Inspections built plans and investigate flooding complaints.
Civil Inspector II
The five civil inspector positions will create a third civil area
(3 positions)
team that is necessary to address increased work volume, the
Development
Civil Inspection TSMC project timeline, increased complexity of civil
Civil Inspections Field Supv Inspections
improvements/flooding issues as well as the heightened
importance of trees due to the Tree and Shade Master Plan.
Civil Inspector III
Development Commercial
Structural Inspector II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Development Commercial
Electrical Inspector II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Development Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention Specialist II To address increase in inspections due to construction activity.
Inspections Inspection
Planning & Dev Team Leader
Architect To create a new major commercial team to better manage
Development Commercial
existing and new projects to meet critical review deadlines and
Plan Review Plan Review
Fire Protection Engineer issue permits.
Electrical Plans Engineer
Page 195
Title Division - Section Team What Does this Position address?
To assist the minor commercial team with pre-log review,
Development Commercial
Building Code Examiner building plan review and processing of self-certified building
Plan Review Plan Review
plans.
To assist in reducing turnaround times for residential building
Development Residential
Construction Permit Specialist II plans, responding to customer inquiries and pre-log of
Plan Review Plan Review
residential plans.
To provide supervisory support over team responsible for
Development Residential
Chief Engineering Tech*U7 processing of single-family home permits, pool permits, fence
Plan Review Plan Review
permits and other miscellaneous residential permits.
Senior Engineering Tech Development Residential To assist with residential plan review, primarily preparing and
(2 positions) Plan Review Plan Review processing plot plan submittals.
To assist in the timely review of preapplication and preliminary
Development Fire Prevention
Fire Prevention Specialist II site review plans, reduce turnaround times and provide site plan
Plan Review Plan Review
review assistance for some major projects.
Historic Residential Address preapplication backlog for Certificates of
Planner II
Preservation Plan Review Appropriateness to improve development response times.
To provide additional administrative and site plan review
FT Admin Intern
Planning Site Planning support, conduct research on difficult projects, and provide a
(2 positions)
pool of future planner candidates.
Total Staff Requested: 34
Page 196
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Ordinance for the Acquisition of Real Property Located at 100 W. Washington
St., 101 W. Adams St., and 303 N. 2nd Ave. (Ordinance S-47831)
An ordinance to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to voluntarily acquire real
property located at 100 W. Washington St., 101 W. Adams St., and 303 N. 2nd Ave. for
$46,500,000, and to execute all licenses, leases, and agreements in furtherance of this
acquisition. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse, and for the
City Treasurer to accept, all funds related to this item.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code § 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code §42-18.
Summary
The City proposes to purchase an approximate 525,814-square-foot office building
with an attached 253,640-square-foot parking garage situated on 2.02 acres located at
100 W. Washington St. and 101 W. Adams St., and an approximate 253,640-square-
foot parking garage situated on 1.22 acres located at 303 N. 2nd Ave. The properties
will be acquired as one transaction for consolidation of City office space. The City will
lease back the main branch space to the seller during the seller’s transition into a new
space. The purchase price was negotiated on the open market based on the City’s
appraisal.
The parcels included in this request are identified by Maricopa County Assessor's
parcel number (APN) and address:
1) 100 W. Washington St. - identified by APN 112-21-014D
2) 101 W. Adams St. - identified by APN 112-21-014E
3) 303 N. 2nd Ave. - identified by APN 111-42-106B
Financial Impact
Funding is available through excise tax backed obligations.
Location
1st Avenue, Washington to Adams streets, and 2nd Avenue and Van Buren Street.
Page 197
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 198
Report
St., 101 W. Adams St., and 303 N. 2nd Ave. (Ordinance S-47831)
An ordinance to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to voluntarily acquire real
property located at 100 W. Washington St., 101 W. Adams St., and 303 N. 2nd Ave. for
$46,500,000, and to execute all licenses, leases, and agreements in furtherance of this
acquisition. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse, and for the
City Treasurer to accept, all funds related to this item.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code § 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be
prohibited by Phoenix City Code §42-18.
Summary
The City proposes to purchase an approximate 525,814-square-foot office building
with an attached 253,640-square-foot parking garage situated on 2.02 acres located at
100 W. Washington St. and 101 W. Adams St., and an approximate 253,640-square-
foot parking garage situated on 1.22 acres located at 303 N. 2nd Ave. The properties
will be acquired as one transaction for consolidation of City office space. The City will
lease back the main branch space to the seller during the seller’s transition into a new
space. The purchase price was negotiated on the open market based on the City’s
appraisal.
The parcels included in this request are identified by Maricopa County Assessor's
parcel number (APN) and address:
1) 100 W. Washington St. - identified by APN 112-21-014D
2) 101 W. Adams St. - identified by APN 112-21-014E
3) 303 N. 2nd Ave. - identified by APN 111-42-106B
Financial Impact
Funding is available through excise tax backed obligations.
Location
1st Avenue, Washington to Adams streets, and 2nd Avenue and Van Buren Street.
Page 197
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 198
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of Obligations for the Acquisition,
Construction and Improvement of Municipal Facilities (Ordinance S-47832)
An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to issue or to cause the
issuance of, obligations of or by the City, a municipal property corporation or a
corporate trustee or a loan from a bank or financial institution as short-term and/or long
-term obligations, including execution and delivery of all leases and other agreements
necessary or appropriate for the financing, refinancing or reimbursing of costs for
acquiring, constructing and improving real and personal property for municipal facilities
for the City of Phoenix and associated financing costs; pledge, if deemed appropriate,
excise taxes or other lawfully available funds for such purposes and to pay financing
costs; and authorizing the City Controller to receive and expend all necessary funds
therefore.
Summary
This Ordinance provides authorization to issue obligations up to $60,000,000 principal
amount plus related financing costs to acquire, construct and improve real and
personal property.
Financial Impact
The City will pledge excise taxes or other lawfully available funds to the repayment of
the obligations.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 199
Report
Construction and Improvement of Municipal Facilities (Ordinance S-47832)
An Ordinance authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to issue or to cause the
issuance of, obligations of or by the City, a municipal property corporation or a
corporate trustee or a loan from a bank or financial institution as short-term and/or long
-term obligations, including execution and delivery of all leases and other agreements
necessary or appropriate for the financing, refinancing or reimbursing of costs for
acquiring, constructing and improving real and personal property for municipal facilities
for the City of Phoenix and associated financing costs; pledge, if deemed appropriate,
excise taxes or other lawfully available funds for such purposes and to pay financing
costs; and authorizing the City Controller to receive and expend all necessary funds
therefore.
Summary
This Ordinance provides authorization to issue obligations up to $60,000,000 principal
amount plus related financing costs to acquire, construct and improve real and
personal property.
Financial Impact
The City will pledge excise taxes or other lawfully available funds to the repayment of
the obligations.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Finance Department.
Page 199
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
COVID-19 Community and Mobile Testing and Vaccination Health Events -
Amendments (Ordinance S-47827)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreements: 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare, L.L.C.; and 152430 with Equality
Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and Equality Care Center, to add
COVID-19 vaccination services. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to execute amendments to Agreements: 152825 with Vincere Physicians
Group PLLC; 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C.; 153733 with Premier Lab
Solutions; and 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories,
LLC, and Equality Care Center, to add additional funding and time to the agreements.
Additionally request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. The additional aggregate agreements' value
included in this amendment will not exceed $2.5 million. Funding is available through
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the
City's Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines category of the
strategic plan.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on
March 20, 2020. Staff continues to work with COVID-19 testing vendors to ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available through the
duration of the public health emergency. The Public Works Department is seeking to
expand and extend COVID-19 testing and vaccination service capability to the general
public at community testing health care events.
Staff will return to discuss future vaccine and testing efforts in early fall.
Contract Term
The revised agreements will begin on or about July 1, 2021, for a six-month period,
with one option to extend for an additional six months.
Financial Impact
This additional funding authorized by this amendment will not exceed an aggregate
value of $2.5 million.
Page 200
Funding is available through ARPA from the federal government and is under the City's
Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines category of the
strategic plan.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C. on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories,
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021; and
· The American Rescue Plan Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters and Inger Erickson, and the Public Works and Parks and Recreation
departments.
Page 201
Report
Amendments (Ordinance S-47827)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments to
Agreements: 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare, L.L.C.; and 152430 with Equality
Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and Equality Care Center, to add
COVID-19 vaccination services. Further request to authorize the City Manager, or his
designee, to execute amendments to Agreements: 152825 with Vincere Physicians
Group PLLC; 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C.; 153733 with Premier Lab
Solutions; and 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories,
LLC, and Equality Care Center, to add additional funding and time to the agreements.
Additionally request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. The additional aggregate agreements' value
included in this amendment will not exceed $2.5 million. Funding is available through
the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the
City's Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines category of the
strategic plan.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on
March 20, 2020. Staff continues to work with COVID-19 testing vendors to ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available through the
duration of the public health emergency. The Public Works Department is seeking to
expand and extend COVID-19 testing and vaccination service capability to the general
public at community testing health care events.
Staff will return to discuss future vaccine and testing efforts in early fall.
Contract Term
The revised agreements will begin on or about July 1, 2021, for a six-month period,
with one option to extend for an additional six months.
Financial Impact
This additional funding authorized by this amendment will not exceed an aggregate
value of $2.5 million.
Page 200
Funding is available through ARPA from the federal government and is under the City's
Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and Vaccines category of the
strategic plan.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C. on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories,
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Healthcare L.L.C; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021; and
· The American Rescue Plan Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton, Deputy City Managers
Karen Peters and Inger Erickson, and the Public Works and Parks and Recreation
departments.
Page 201
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Enter into Agreements for Phoenix Resilient Food System Programs (Ordinance
S-47812)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Local First Arizona Foundation; LISC Phoenix; Arizona Food Bank
Network; Aramark Sports and Entertainment L.L.C. dba Aventura Catering; and Waste
Not, to provide food assistance to vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. The aggregate agreements value will not
exceed $6,290,000. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City’s Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the strategic plan.
Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP)
developed a food assistance plan to address the food needs of vulnerable populations
and communities impacted by COVID-19. The plan provides: 1) access to healthy
foods for impacted populations; 2) infrastructure assistance regarding transportation
and delivery with a focus on home delivery; 3) support for food banks, food pantries
and community agencies; 4) support for increased local food production; and 5)
business and employment opportunities throughout the food system spectrum.
Continuing Programs
Three programs that were previously funded, the Feed Phoenix Initiative managed by
Local First Arizona Foundation (LFAF), the Funds to Feed Initiative managed by Local
Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), and the Arizona Food Bank Network (AFBN)
program, will be continued. These programs increased access to healthy foods with
prepared meals and food boxes for impacted populations using local businesses
(restaurants, caterers, event venues, food hubs, mobile markets), local Phoenix-based
farms, nonprofit and grassroots organizations, school districts, and food banks and
pantries. Funds will continue to be distributed to those entities selected and deemed
eligible in the previous open grant process for each program. Additional entities will be
selected using similar grant processes previously used as funding allocation allows.
LISC, LFAF, and AFBN will continue to serve as Subrecipients and will administer and
Page 202
manage their respective programs and perform services including receiving
applications, selecting applicants, disbursing funds, and collecting compliance
monitoring data to provide monthly reports to OEP. The agreements executed with
each organization will detail the Subrecipient’s responsibilities, grantee requirements,
schedule, and reporting requirements. Details are shown below, by agency:
· Local First Arizona Foundation - provide administrative and financial support
through issuance of grants for restaurants, catering, including event venues with
catering services, farmers, community-supported agriculture, food hubs, and mobile
markets, city-wide, demonstrating capacity for food distribution services to
vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
· LISC - provide administrative and financial support through issuance of grants for
organizations city-wide, including grassroots, community, nonprofits, health, social
service providers and public schools demonstrating capacity for food distribution
services to vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
· Arizona Food Bank Network - provide administrative and financial support through
issuance of grants to smaller agencies (food banks/pantries) throughout Phoenix
who partner with the St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance to distribute food, including
assisting agencies that may not be part of the alliance to join. AFBN is the only
organization with an established grant assistance program for entities that are
affiliated with St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance.
New Program
The Meals to Work Program will use the services of Aventura Catering and the
kitchens at the Phoenix Convention Center to prepare 1,000 healthy, nutritious meals
weekly for 26 weeks. Meals will be delivered to social service organizations, such as
St. Vincent de Paul and others. In addition to helping COVID-19 impacted families and
individuals, 14 employees will be able to return to work at the Phoenix Convention
Center. Delivery will be contracted through Waste Not, a nonprofit focused on food
recovery, who has the experience, capacity, and infrastructure to deliver the meals
safely from the Convention Center to the organizations.
OEP will assist LISC, LFAF, AFBN, and Waste Not to oversee the agreements and
coordinate any needed services, such as program outreach and connections to social
service organizations.
Outreach and Support Staff
Funding will be used to hire two temporary full-time positions, a project manager and
an administrative assistant, to manage and monitor all of the activities associated with
the Phoenix Resilient Food System Programs.
Page 203
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10 to implement and administer programs intended to prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from the COVID-19 national pandemic.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about July 19, 2021 through Aug. 30, 2022.
Agreements may be extended based on continuous need and available funding, which
may be exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $6,090,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City’s Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the strategic plan.
The funding breakdown is as follows:
· Local First Arizona - $2.7 million
· LISC - $1.95 million
· Arizona Food Bank Network - $800,000
· Aventura Catering - $565,000
· Waste Not - $75,000
· Outreach and Support Staff - $200,000
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Office of
Environmental Programs.
Page 204
Report
S-47812)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Local First Arizona Foundation; LISC Phoenix; Arizona Food Bank
Network; Aramark Sports and Entertainment L.L.C. dba Aventura Catering; and Waste
Not, to provide food assistance to vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item. The aggregate agreements value will not
exceed $6,290,000. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City’s Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the strategic plan.
Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP)
developed a food assistance plan to address the food needs of vulnerable populations
and communities impacted by COVID-19. The plan provides: 1) access to healthy
foods for impacted populations; 2) infrastructure assistance regarding transportation
and delivery with a focus on home delivery; 3) support for food banks, food pantries
and community agencies; 4) support for increased local food production; and 5)
business and employment opportunities throughout the food system spectrum.
Continuing Programs
Three programs that were previously funded, the Feed Phoenix Initiative managed by
Local First Arizona Foundation (LFAF), the Funds to Feed Initiative managed by Local
Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), and the Arizona Food Bank Network (AFBN)
program, will be continued. These programs increased access to healthy foods with
prepared meals and food boxes for impacted populations using local businesses
(restaurants, caterers, event venues, food hubs, mobile markets), local Phoenix-based
farms, nonprofit and grassroots organizations, school districts, and food banks and
pantries. Funds will continue to be distributed to those entities selected and deemed
eligible in the previous open grant process for each program. Additional entities will be
selected using similar grant processes previously used as funding allocation allows.
LISC, LFAF, and AFBN will continue to serve as Subrecipients and will administer and
Page 202
manage their respective programs and perform services including receiving
applications, selecting applicants, disbursing funds, and collecting compliance
monitoring data to provide monthly reports to OEP. The agreements executed with
each organization will detail the Subrecipient’s responsibilities, grantee requirements,
schedule, and reporting requirements. Details are shown below, by agency:
· Local First Arizona Foundation - provide administrative and financial support
through issuance of grants for restaurants, catering, including event venues with
catering services, farmers, community-supported agriculture, food hubs, and mobile
markets, city-wide, demonstrating capacity for food distribution services to
vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
· LISC - provide administrative and financial support through issuance of grants for
organizations city-wide, including grassroots, community, nonprofits, health, social
service providers and public schools demonstrating capacity for food distribution
services to vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19.
· Arizona Food Bank Network - provide administrative and financial support through
issuance of grants to smaller agencies (food banks/pantries) throughout Phoenix
who partner with the St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance to distribute food, including
assisting agencies that may not be part of the alliance to join. AFBN is the only
organization with an established grant assistance program for entities that are
affiliated with St. Mary’s Food Bank Alliance.
New Program
The Meals to Work Program will use the services of Aventura Catering and the
kitchens at the Phoenix Convention Center to prepare 1,000 healthy, nutritious meals
weekly for 26 weeks. Meals will be delivered to social service organizations, such as
St. Vincent de Paul and others. In addition to helping COVID-19 impacted families and
individuals, 14 employees will be able to return to work at the Phoenix Convention
Center. Delivery will be contracted through Waste Not, a nonprofit focused on food
recovery, who has the experience, capacity, and infrastructure to deliver the meals
safely from the Convention Center to the organizations.
OEP will assist LISC, LFAF, AFBN, and Waste Not to oversee the agreements and
coordinate any needed services, such as program outreach and connections to social
service organizations.
Outreach and Support Staff
Funding will be used to hire two temporary full-time positions, a project manager and
an administrative assistant, to manage and monitor all of the activities associated with
the Phoenix Resilient Food System Programs.
Page 203
Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10 to implement and administer programs intended to prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from the COVID-19 national pandemic.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about July 19, 2021 through Aug. 30, 2022.
Agreements may be extended based on continuous need and available funding, which
may be exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $6,090,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City’s Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the strategic plan.
The funding breakdown is as follows:
· Local First Arizona - $2.7 million
· LISC - $1.95 million
· Arizona Food Bank Network - $800,000
· Aventura Catering - $565,000
· Waste Not - $75,000
· Outreach and Support Staff - $200,000
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Office of
Environmental Programs.
Page 204
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Retroactive Approval for American Rescue Plan Act Funding for Head Start Birth
to Five for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Ordinance S-47783)
Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept, and, if awarded, enter into any necessary agreements for the Head Start and
Child Care Partnership grants. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. There is no
impact to the General Fund, as one-time funding is provided through the American
Rescue Plan Act in the amount of $4,129,122.
Summary
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start received $1
billion as a portion of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. As a grantee, the
response to the coronavirus pandemic. This funding will be used to create or expand
learning environments for toddler and preschool-aged children, purchase high-quality
UV disinfecting machines to sanitize small classroom materials, continue mental health
and wellness activities for families and staff, employment of additional staff in
classrooms, furniture for new classrooms, additional materials for classrooms, lease or
purchase of classroom space, and professional development. Funding may also be
used to deliver meals and snacks to children in school and sanitize the learning and
work environments. ARPA funds will be used for preschool-aged children's summer
school opportunities in June 2022, 2023, and 2024. This is a non-competitive
supplemental application.
The funding will be allocated based on the number of slots per program listed below:
· Head Start Education Service Providers (2,963 slots) - $2,963,000;
· Early Head Start Home-Based (300 slots) - $300,000; and
· Early Head Start Child Care Partners (188 slots) - $188,000.
As the grantee, the City of Phoenix will retain $678,122 to purchase or lease space to
create service hubs for parents and Early Head Start socialization sites. Funding will
also be used to purchase and replenish protective equipment for staff to use when
meeting with parents, conducting home visits, or participating in community events.
Page 205
The contracted Head Start Education Service Providers and Early Head Start Child
Care Partners are listed below:
Education Service Providers
Alhambra Elementary School District
Booker T. Washington Child Development Center
Deer Valley Unified School District
Fowler Elementary School District
Greater Phoenix Urban League
Roosevelt Elementary School District
Washington Elementary School District
Child Care Partners
Cactus Kids Child Care Center
Fusion Minds dba Immanuel Care for Children
Out of This World Christian Child Care
Contract Term
The ARPA funding will be received July 1, 2021 and must be expended by June 30,
2024.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. One-time funding is provided through the
ARPA funding.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 206
Report
to Five for Fiscal Year 2021-22 (Ordinance S-47783)
Request to retroactively authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for,
accept, and, if awarded, enter into any necessary agreements for the Head Start and
Child Care Partnership grants. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. There is no
impact to the General Fund, as one-time funding is provided through the American
Rescue Plan Act in the amount of $4,129,122.
Summary
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start received $1
billion as a portion of American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding. As a grantee, the
response to the coronavirus pandemic. This funding will be used to create or expand
learning environments for toddler and preschool-aged children, purchase high-quality
UV disinfecting machines to sanitize small classroom materials, continue mental health
and wellness activities for families and staff, employment of additional staff in
classrooms, furniture for new classrooms, additional materials for classrooms, lease or
purchase of classroom space, and professional development. Funding may also be
used to deliver meals and snacks to children in school and sanitize the learning and
work environments. ARPA funds will be used for preschool-aged children's summer
school opportunities in June 2022, 2023, and 2024. This is a non-competitive
supplemental application.
The funding will be allocated based on the number of slots per program listed below:
· Head Start Education Service Providers (2,963 slots) - $2,963,000;
· Early Head Start Home-Based (300 slots) - $300,000; and
· Early Head Start Child Care Partners (188 slots) - $188,000.
As the grantee, the City of Phoenix will retain $678,122 to purchase or lease space to
create service hubs for parents and Early Head Start socialization sites. Funding will
also be used to purchase and replenish protective equipment for staff to use when
meeting with parents, conducting home visits, or participating in community events.
Page 205
The contracted Head Start Education Service Providers and Early Head Start Child
Care Partners are listed below:
Education Service Providers
Alhambra Elementary School District
Booker T. Washington Child Development Center
Deer Valley Unified School District
Fowler Elementary School District
Greater Phoenix Urban League
Roosevelt Elementary School District
Washington Elementary School District
Child Care Partners
Cactus Kids Child Care Center
Fusion Minds dba Immanuel Care for Children
Out of This World Christian Child Care
Contract Term
The ARPA funding will be received July 1, 2021 and must be expended by June 30,
2024.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. One-time funding is provided through the
ARPA funding.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 206
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Enter into Contract with Human Services Campus, Inc. for
Sprung Structure Project (Ordinance S-47813)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Human Services Campus, Inc. (HSC) to procure and install a sprung structure
on HSC premises in support of heat relief services for individuals experiencing
homelessness. Further request to procure and purchase a sprung structure from a
vendor and have it installed on HSC premises as an alternative method to complete
the project. Additionally, request to enter into agreements with HSC for the use of
HSC’s premises for the sprung structure for a term of up to five years. Further, request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The aggregate value of these agreements will not exceed $2.5
million. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Act
Plan (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the City’s
Summer Heat Respite category of the strategic plan.
Summary
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HSC shelter capacity has decreased
leaving the most vulnerable populations with no place to stay overnight. HSC, or the
City, will use the funding to place a temporary sprung structure to include bathrooms,
showers, beds, utility connections, office equipment and permanent fencing on the
HSC campus located at 204 S. 12th Ave. The sprung structure, at the direction of the
City, may be relocated in order to provide heat relief services at an alternate location.
Funding for the sprung structure will prevent, prepare for and mitigate the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic among individuals and/or families experiencing homelessness
who are at greater risk of exposure and susceptibility by offering an additional place to
stay.
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021 and end no later than June
30, 2026. The purchase and installation of the sprung structure must be completed by
Sept. 30, 2021.
Page 207
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $2.5 million over the life of the contracts. Funding for
the sprung structure is available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue
Act Plan (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the City’s
Summer Heat Respite category. Funding for any necessary site improvements may be
provided from the Human Services Department budget or ARPA funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 208
Report
Sprung Structure Project (Ordinance S-47813)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Human Services Campus, Inc. (HSC) to procure and install a sprung structure
on HSC premises in support of heat relief services for individuals experiencing
homelessness. Further request to procure and purchase a sprung structure from a
vendor and have it installed on HSC premises as an alternative method to complete
the project. Additionally, request to enter into agreements with HSC for the use of
HSC’s premises for the sprung structure for a term of up to five years. Further, request
to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The aggregate value of these agreements will not exceed $2.5
million. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Act
Plan (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the City’s
Summer Heat Respite category of the strategic plan.
Summary
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the HSC shelter capacity has decreased
leaving the most vulnerable populations with no place to stay overnight. HSC, or the
City, will use the funding to place a temporary sprung structure to include bathrooms,
showers, beds, utility connections, office equipment and permanent fencing on the
HSC campus located at 204 S. 12th Ave. The sprung structure, at the direction of the
City, may be relocated in order to provide heat relief services at an alternate location.
Funding for the sprung structure will prevent, prepare for and mitigate the effects of the
COVID-19 pandemic among individuals and/or families experiencing homelessness
who are at greater risk of exposure and susceptibility by offering an additional place to
stay.
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021 and end no later than June
30, 2026. The purchase and installation of the sprung structure must be completed by
Sept. 30, 2021.
Page 207
Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $2.5 million over the life of the contracts. Funding for
the sprung structure is available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue
Act Plan (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under the City’s
Summer Heat Respite category. Funding for any necessary site improvements may be
provided from the Human Services Department budget or ARPA funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 208
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Phoenix Arts and Culture Recovery Program (Ordinance S-47819)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into grant agreements
with nonprofit arts and culture organizations, individual artists, and professional
consultants throughout the City of Phoenix. Further authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, the funds for purposes of this ordinance.
The total value of the agreements will not exceed $5,000,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City's Phoenix Arts, Business, and Employee Program category of the strategic
plan.
Summary
The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture developed a recovery plan to help support
nonprofit arts and culture organizations and artists still hurting financially due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The program also funds a mix of workforce and economic
development initiatives and community programs.
Program elements include:
Nonprofit Arts and Culture Stabilization Grants
Grants would provide funding to Phoenix nonprofit arts and culture organizations of all
sizes to manage their operations, personnel as they welcome back audiences, guests,
and patrons to their programs. Grants will be adjudicated through an application
process.
Artist to Work Initiative
This program will enable the City to contract artists to develop art projects,
installations, and performances in communities that receive limited funding from the
public sector. Projects would activate a wide range of public spaces, including parks,
trails, community centers, and neighborhood areas not usually defined or programmed
as cultural spaces. The program will be adjudicated through the RFQ process.
Arts Career Advancement Grants
Grants will help support working artists or arts workers who have experienced job loss,
Page 209
indefinitely postponed or canceled events and residencies, or terminated contracts
because of the pandemic. Funding not only can cover lost income but also offer
support to grow their artistic and business skills. Grants will be adjudicated through an
application process.
Arts and Culture Internships
This program would allow nonprofit arts and culture organizations to hire full-time
interns versus contract or for-credit stipends. In addition, the internships provide
Phoenix undergraduate students with meaningful on-the-job training and experience
working in the cultural sector. The program will be adjudicated through an application
process.
Technical Assistance and Outreach
Funds will continue the work done with trainings, workshops, professional
development and resources for the field in areas like financial sustainability, business
practices and reopening strategies. Funds also will be used to hire contractors to help
support projects and conduct special outreach to ensure equitable distribution of
resources in the community.
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $5,000,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City's Phoenix Arts, Business, and Employee Program category of the strategic
plan. The funding breakdown is as follows:
Nonprofit Arts and Culture Stabilization Grants: $2,750,000
Artists to Work Initiative: $1,000,000
Arts Career Advancement Grants: $500,000
Arts and Culture Internships: $500,000
Arts Technical Assistance and Outreach: $250,000
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Mayor and Council discussed and approved the plan to implement the $5,000,000
Phoenix Arts and Culture Recovery Program at its Policy Session on June 8, 2021 by
a vote of 7-2.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 210
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into grant agreements
with nonprofit arts and culture organizations, individual artists, and professional
consultants throughout the City of Phoenix. Further authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, the funds for purposes of this ordinance.
The total value of the agreements will not exceed $5,000,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City's Phoenix Arts, Business, and Employee Program category of the strategic
plan.
Summary
The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture developed a recovery plan to help support
nonprofit arts and culture organizations and artists still hurting financially due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The program also funds a mix of workforce and economic
development initiatives and community programs.
Program elements include:
Nonprofit Arts and Culture Stabilization Grants
Grants would provide funding to Phoenix nonprofit arts and culture organizations of all
sizes to manage their operations, personnel as they welcome back audiences, guests,
and patrons to their programs. Grants will be adjudicated through an application
process.
Artist to Work Initiative
This program will enable the City to contract artists to develop art projects,
installations, and performances in communities that receive limited funding from the
public sector. Projects would activate a wide range of public spaces, including parks,
trails, community centers, and neighborhood areas not usually defined or programmed
as cultural spaces. The program will be adjudicated through the RFQ process.
Arts Career Advancement Grants
Grants will help support working artists or arts workers who have experienced job loss,
Page 209
indefinitely postponed or canceled events and residencies, or terminated contracts
because of the pandemic. Funding not only can cover lost income but also offer
support to grow their artistic and business skills. Grants will be adjudicated through an
application process.
Arts and Culture Internships
This program would allow nonprofit arts and culture organizations to hire full-time
interns versus contract or for-credit stipends. In addition, the internships provide
Phoenix undergraduate students with meaningful on-the-job training and experience
working in the cultural sector. The program will be adjudicated through an application
process.
Technical Assistance and Outreach
Funds will continue the work done with trainings, workshops, professional
development and resources for the field in areas like financial sustainability, business
practices and reopening strategies. Funds also will be used to hire contractors to help
support projects and conduct special outreach to ensure equitable distribution of
resources in the community.
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $5,000,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal government and is under
the City's Phoenix Arts, Business, and Employee Program category of the strategic
plan. The funding breakdown is as follows:
Nonprofit Arts and Culture Stabilization Grants: $2,750,000
Artists to Work Initiative: $1,000,000
Arts Career Advancement Grants: $500,000
Arts and Culture Internships: $500,000
Arts Technical Assistance and Outreach: $250,000
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Mayor and Council discussed and approved the plan to implement the $5,000,000
Phoenix Arts and Culture Recovery Program at its Policy Session on June 8, 2021 by
a vote of 7-2.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 210
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Parks and Recreation Department After-School Programs and Youth Sports
(Ordinance S-47822)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into grant
agreements with nonprofit organizations and schools throughout Phoenix. Further
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, the funds
for purposes of this ordinance. The total value of the agreements will not exceed
$3,000,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the
City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government
and is under the City's Phoenix Youth Sports, Recreation, Education and After-School
category of the strategic plan.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department experienced record numbers in park usage
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While the department successfully transitioned to
offering many programs virtually, in-person after-school and youth sports programs
were temporarily suspended since March 2020. The department has developed a plan
to help provide safe, affordable and inclusive recreation opportunities for youth, during
the critical after-school hours and is proposing to use funds to support these efforts in
vulnerable communities throughout the City.
After-School Program Grants
Grants will provide funding to Phoenix schools to allow them to implement free or
affordable after-school programs, which would enable children to have a fun,
educational and inclusive place to be after school. The program will be administered
through an application process.
Youth Sports Grants
Grants will provide funding to Phoenix non-profit organizations to provide free youth
sports opportunities during after-school hours. Sports are a great way to engage youth
during the critical after-school hours. Many youth throughout the City are not able to
participate in these activities due to financial barriers. The program will be
administered through an application process.
Page 211
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $3,000,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the City's Phoenix
Youth Sports, Recreation, Education and After-School category of the strategic plan.
The funding breakdown is as follows:
After-School Grant for Phoenix Schools: $2.5 million
Youth Sports League Grant for Phoenix Non-profits: $500,000
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
the June 8, 2021 Policy meeting by a vote of 7-2.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 212
Report
(Ordinance S-47822)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into grant
agreements with nonprofit organizations and schools throughout Phoenix. Further
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, the funds
for purposes of this ordinance. The total value of the agreements will not exceed
$3,000,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the
City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government
and is under the City's Phoenix Youth Sports, Recreation, Education and After-School
category of the strategic plan.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department experienced record numbers in park usage
throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While the department successfully transitioned to
offering many programs virtually, in-person after-school and youth sports programs
were temporarily suspended since March 2020. The department has developed a plan
to help provide safe, affordable and inclusive recreation opportunities for youth, during
the critical after-school hours and is proposing to use funds to support these efforts in
vulnerable communities throughout the City.
After-School Program Grants
Grants will provide funding to Phoenix schools to allow them to implement free or
affordable after-school programs, which would enable children to have a fun,
educational and inclusive place to be after school. The program will be administered
through an application process.
Youth Sports Grants
Grants will provide funding to Phoenix non-profit organizations to provide free youth
sports opportunities during after-school hours. Sports are a great way to engage youth
during the critical after-school hours. Many youth throughout the City are not able to
participate in these activities due to financial barriers. The program will be
administered through an application process.
Page 211
Financial Impact
Funding for these programs will not exceed $3,000,000. There is no impact to the
General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the American
Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the City's Phoenix
Youth Sports, Recreation, Education and After-School category of the strategic plan.
The funding breakdown is as follows:
After-School Grant for Phoenix Schools: $2.5 million
Youth Sports League Grant for Phoenix Non-profits: $500,000
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
the June 8, 2021 Policy meeting by a vote of 7-2.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 212
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract Extension with CO+HOOTS to Continue Small Business Community
Platform (Ordinance S-47803)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend a contract with
CO+HOOTS to continue PHXbizConnect, a technology-driven Small Business
Community Platform, to support small businesses impacted by and recovering from
the COVID-19 pandemic. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept
and the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding for this digital
platform will not exceed $295,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is
available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funding received from the federal government and is under the City's Small Business
Workforce Program category.
Summary
In May 2020, City Council approved $100,000 in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds to
invest in a small business program to assist Phoenix businesses with their pandemic
recovery efforts. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized staff to contract with
CO+HOOTS to implement this program. CO+HOOTS, founded in 2010 as central
Phoenix’s first coworking space, is an entrepreneurship ecosystem accelerator and
support organization that provides educational resources and collaborative, self-
sustaining spaces to grow the entrepreneurial, startup and small business community.
On March 1, 2021, Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD) and
CO+HOOTS launched PHXbizConnect by HUUB, a social media platform where
business owners connect with like-minded business owners, ask questions, share
successes, and find solutions to business related issues. PHXbizConnect, available in
both English and Spanish, streamlines support for small businesses in one central,
virtual location and helps to boost the resilience of Phoenix small businesses. By May
2021, PHXbizConnect exceeded expectations with more than 430 businesses
registered on the platform. Seventy-eight percent of these businesses have fewer than
10 employees; many are restaurants, retail shops, and professional services providers.
Registered businesses have indicated PHXbizConnect has been vital in helping them
navigate through the pandemic, connect to resources, learn new skills, find grants, and
grow their business during this critical time.
Page 213
The City's contract with CO+HOOTS, Contract No. 153515, began on Dec. 16, 2020
and is due to expire on June 30, 2021. If approved, the proposed extension would
begin in July 2021 and expire in one year. CO+HOOTS will continue to provide
reporting and performance metrics to CEDD to track assistance to Phoenix small
businesses.
Procurement Information
CO+HOOTS was selected through Alternative Competition based on its experience
creating a similar program for the City of Mesa.
Contract Term
If approved, the proposed extension would begin in July 2021 and expire after one
year.
Financial Impact
Funding to extend the Small Business Community Platform via CO+HOOTS will not
exceed $295,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available
through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
At the May 5, 2020 City Council Policy meeting, City Council approved $100,000 to
create a tool that would provide small businesses with expertise on key business
topics, guidelines to assist with business recovery and on-demand solutions during this
unprecedented time. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized staff to enter in a
contract with CO+HOOTS.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 214
Report
Platform (Ordinance S-47803)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend a contract with
CO+HOOTS to continue PHXbizConnect, a technology-driven Small Business
Community Platform, to support small businesses impacted by and recovering from
the COVID-19 pandemic. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept
and the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Funding for this digital
platform will not exceed $295,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is
available through the City’s allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
funding received from the federal government and is under the City's Small Business
Workforce Program category.
Summary
In May 2020, City Council approved $100,000 in federal Coronavirus Relief Funds to
invest in a small business program to assist Phoenix businesses with their pandemic
recovery efforts. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized staff to contract with
CO+HOOTS to implement this program. CO+HOOTS, founded in 2010 as central
Phoenix’s first coworking space, is an entrepreneurship ecosystem accelerator and
support organization that provides educational resources and collaborative, self-
sustaining spaces to grow the entrepreneurial, startup and small business community.
On March 1, 2021, Community and Economic Development Department (CEDD) and
CO+HOOTS launched PHXbizConnect by HUUB, a social media platform where
business owners connect with like-minded business owners, ask questions, share
successes, and find solutions to business related issues. PHXbizConnect, available in
both English and Spanish, streamlines support for small businesses in one central,
virtual location and helps to boost the resilience of Phoenix small businesses. By May
2021, PHXbizConnect exceeded expectations with more than 430 businesses
registered on the platform. Seventy-eight percent of these businesses have fewer than
10 employees; many are restaurants, retail shops, and professional services providers.
Registered businesses have indicated PHXbizConnect has been vital in helping them
navigate through the pandemic, connect to resources, learn new skills, find grants, and
grow their business during this critical time.
Page 213
The City's contract with CO+HOOTS, Contract No. 153515, began on Dec. 16, 2020
and is due to expire on June 30, 2021. If approved, the proposed extension would
begin in July 2021 and expire in one year. CO+HOOTS will continue to provide
reporting and performance metrics to CEDD to track assistance to Phoenix small
businesses.
Procurement Information
CO+HOOTS was selected through Alternative Competition based on its experience
creating a similar program for the City of Mesa.
Contract Term
If approved, the proposed extension would begin in July 2021 and expire after one
year.
Financial Impact
Funding to extend the Small Business Community Platform via CO+HOOTS will not
exceed $295,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available
through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
At the May 5, 2020 City Council Policy meeting, City Council approved $100,000 to
create a tool that would provide small businesses with expertise on key business
topics, guidelines to assist with business recovery and on-demand solutions during this
unprecedented time. On Nov. 4, 2020, City Council authorized staff to enter in a
contract with CO+HOOTS.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 214
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contracts to Implement Small Business Grants Program (Ordinance S-47816)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
the Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) for small business grant administration
services, to amend contracts with one or more temporary staffing companies to add
funds for assistance with the City's review of grant applications, to fund two temporary
City staff positions, and to implement this grant program. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds related to
this request. Funding for this grant program will not exceed $8 million. There is no
impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the City's
Micro and Small Business Assistance Programs category of the strategic plan.
Summary
In April 2020, the City partnered with the Phoenix IDA and ACF on the first round of the
Small Business Relief Grants and awarded up to $10,000 each to more than 200
Phoenix small businesses. Starting in May 2020, the City began a second round of
Small Business Relief Grants as well as a first round of Microbusiness Resiliency
Grants and Restaurant Restart Grants with $11 million in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act funding allocated by City Council. Through the
remainder of calendar year 2020, the City awarded:
· 722 Small Business Relief Grants ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 to businesses
with 25 or fewer employees and annual gross sales less than $3 million.
· 1,639 Microbusiness Resiliency Grants ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 to
businesses with five or fewer employees and annual gross sales less than $1
million.
· 103 Restaurant Restart Grants ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 to restaurants,
caterers, or food truck operators for expenses to restart their businesses.
ACF is a nonprofit organization with a mission to lead, serve and collaborate to
mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better Arizona. If approved, the City will contract
Page 215
with ACF to provide grant administration services, including hosting the website for
grant application submittals, providing customer service in English and Spanish,
verifying applicants' taxpayer identification information, submitting applicant
information to the City for review, notifying applicants of grant application status,
distributing funds to awardees, and issuing Internal Revenue Service 1099 tax forms to
grant recipients.
ACF was selected through a Special Circumstance - Without Competition due to the
unusual nature of these services and ACF's previous experience administering the
City's various small business grants, its existing grant administration infrastructure and
its long-standing reputation in community for financial stewardship and integrity. The
City will release the grant funds to ACF on a rolling basis as needed to fund grants
approved for award by the City. This funding allocation will include ACF's fees to
administer the programs, which are 3.25 percent of the grant funding to be awarded
plus a flat fee of $10,000 to prepare and distribute Internal Revenue Service 1099 tax
forms.
To assist with the implementation of this program, this request includes authorization to
fund two temporary full-time City staff positions and approximately five temporary staff
utilizing the City's contracted employment services providers. The temporary
contracted individuals will assist with the City's review of applications vetted by ACF
and will conduct research to document each applicant's eligibility and other related
duties.
Many of the City's small businesses are still struggling to stay open due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. ARPA funds will provide resources that Phoenix businesses need to stay
open, pay employees, and cover other operational costs due to the downturn in
business.
2021 Small Business Grants Program
A single application form will be offered in English and Spanish. Eligibility requirements
will remain that each business must: 1) currently operate in Phoenix and have been
operating in Phoenix for at least 12 months prior to grant approval; 2) have suffered a
loss in sales, at least 25 percent due to COVID-19, when comparing 2021 to 2020 for
any month since March; 3) employ 25 or fewer individuals; and 4) generate less than
$3 million in annual sales. Grant awards will be based on the applicant's number of
employees and the City will request documentation as needed to ensure grant awards
are helping to retain jobs in Phoenix. Eligible businesses located immediately adjacent
to light rail construction may receive additional funding to offset the economic impact of
this construction.
Page 216
Staff intends to open the grant application upon filling the temporary City staff
positions, contracting with ACF, and completing all start-up efforts. Business owners
who submitted eligible but unfunded grant applications in 2020 will have exclusive
access to the new grant application for one week. These businesses, as well as
businesses that received grants in 2020, will be permitted to apply for additional
assistance once the grant application is available to all businesses.
Contract Term
The City's grant funding agreement with ACF will begin as soon as possible and have
an initial term of one year with two, one-year extensions, pending future City Council
approval of ARPA funding.
Financial Impact
Total funding for this grants program will not exceed $8 million. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds
received from the federal government.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Employee Assistance at its June 8, 2021 City Council Policy meeting. Previously, City
Council approved CARES Act funding for the Small Business Relief Grants ($5 million)
on April 30, 2020 and for the Microbusiness Resiliency Grants ($6 million) and
Restaurant Restart Grants ($1 million) on May 5, 2020. On Aug. 26, 2020 and Oct. 21,
2020, City Council approved changes to the eligibility requirements for these grant
programs to assist more small businesses and an additional $1,087,000 in small
business grant funding was approved by City Council on Dec. 16, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 217
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
the Arizona Community Foundation (ACF) for small business grant administration
services, to amend contracts with one or more temporary staffing companies to add
funds for assistance with the City's review of grant applications, to fund two temporary
City staff positions, and to implement this grant program. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds related to
this request. Funding for this grant program will not exceed $8 million. There is no
impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) from the federal government and is under the City's
Micro and Small Business Assistance Programs category of the strategic plan.
Summary
In April 2020, the City partnered with the Phoenix IDA and ACF on the first round of the
Small Business Relief Grants and awarded up to $10,000 each to more than 200
Phoenix small businesses. Starting in May 2020, the City began a second round of
Small Business Relief Grants as well as a first round of Microbusiness Resiliency
Grants and Restaurant Restart Grants with $11 million in Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (CARES) Act funding allocated by City Council. Through the
remainder of calendar year 2020, the City awarded:
· 722 Small Business Relief Grants ranging from $3,000 to $10,000 to businesses
with 25 or fewer employees and annual gross sales less than $3 million.
· 1,639 Microbusiness Resiliency Grants ranging from $3,000 to $5,000 to
businesses with five or fewer employees and annual gross sales less than $1
million.
· 103 Restaurant Restart Grants ranging from $5,000 to $10,000 to restaurants,
caterers, or food truck operators for expenses to restart their businesses.
ACF is a nonprofit organization with a mission to lead, serve and collaborate to
mobilize enduring philanthropy for a better Arizona. If approved, the City will contract
Page 215
with ACF to provide grant administration services, including hosting the website for
grant application submittals, providing customer service in English and Spanish,
verifying applicants' taxpayer identification information, submitting applicant
information to the City for review, notifying applicants of grant application status,
distributing funds to awardees, and issuing Internal Revenue Service 1099 tax forms to
grant recipients.
ACF was selected through a Special Circumstance - Without Competition due to the
unusual nature of these services and ACF's previous experience administering the
City's various small business grants, its existing grant administration infrastructure and
its long-standing reputation in community for financial stewardship and integrity. The
City will release the grant funds to ACF on a rolling basis as needed to fund grants
approved for award by the City. This funding allocation will include ACF's fees to
administer the programs, which are 3.25 percent of the grant funding to be awarded
plus a flat fee of $10,000 to prepare and distribute Internal Revenue Service 1099 tax
forms.
To assist with the implementation of this program, this request includes authorization to
fund two temporary full-time City staff positions and approximately five temporary staff
utilizing the City's contracted employment services providers. The temporary
contracted individuals will assist with the City's review of applications vetted by ACF
and will conduct research to document each applicant's eligibility and other related
duties.
Many of the City's small businesses are still struggling to stay open due to the COVID-
19 pandemic. ARPA funds will provide resources that Phoenix businesses need to stay
open, pay employees, and cover other operational costs due to the downturn in
business.
2021 Small Business Grants Program
A single application form will be offered in English and Spanish. Eligibility requirements
will remain that each business must: 1) currently operate in Phoenix and have been
operating in Phoenix for at least 12 months prior to grant approval; 2) have suffered a
loss in sales, at least 25 percent due to COVID-19, when comparing 2021 to 2020 for
any month since March; 3) employ 25 or fewer individuals; and 4) generate less than
$3 million in annual sales. Grant awards will be based on the applicant's number of
employees and the City will request documentation as needed to ensure grant awards
are helping to retain jobs in Phoenix. Eligible businesses located immediately adjacent
to light rail construction may receive additional funding to offset the economic impact of
this construction.
Page 216
Staff intends to open the grant application upon filling the temporary City staff
positions, contracting with ACF, and completing all start-up efforts. Business owners
who submitted eligible but unfunded grant applications in 2020 will have exclusive
access to the new grant application for one week. These businesses, as well as
businesses that received grants in 2020, will be permitted to apply for additional
assistance once the grant application is available to all businesses.
Contract Term
The City's grant funding agreement with ACF will begin as soon as possible and have
an initial term of one year with two, one-year extensions, pending future City Council
approval of ARPA funding.
Financial Impact
Total funding for this grants program will not exceed $8 million. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funding is available through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds
received from the federal government.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Employee Assistance at its June 8, 2021 City Council Policy meeting. Previously, City
Council approved CARES Act funding for the Small Business Relief Grants ($5 million)
on April 30, 2020 and for the Microbusiness Resiliency Grants ($6 million) and
Restaurant Restart Grants ($1 million) on May 5, 2020. On Aug. 26, 2020 and Oct. 21,
2020, City Council approved changes to the eligibility requirements for these grant
programs to assist more small businesses and an additional $1,087,000 in small
business grant funding was approved by City Council on Dec. 16, 2020.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 217
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Enter Into Contracts for COVID-19 Related Homeless Services - Request for
Proposals Contract Awards (Ordinance S-47793)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
responsive offerors for COVID-19 related homeless services eligible under the
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The ESG eligible program components include:
Emergency Shelter, Street Outreach, Rapid Rehousing, Homelessness Prevention,
Data Collection and/or Administration. The term for each contract will begin on or
about July 1, 2021 and end on Sept. 30, 2022. Aggregate expenditures will not exceed
$9.1 million over the life of the contracts. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Phoenix was awarded $22.8 million in Emergency Solutions Grant - CV2
(ESG-CV2) and Community Development Block Grant funding for homeless support
services by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ESG
funds in the amount of $9.1 million were allocated to contract for homeless services in
the following categories: Emergency Shelter, Street Outreach, Rapid Rehousing,
Homelessness Prevention, Data Collection and/or Administration under the ESG
expenditure guidelines. In doing so, the City of Phoenix seeks to end an individual’s
homelessness through outreach and case management services, housing
stabilization, and the eventual provision of a pathway to permanent housing while
simultaneously adhering to Center for Disease Control recommendations to prioritize
efforts for vulnerable individuals due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Funding will be used to prevent, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of the
Coronavirus pandemic among individuals and/or families experiencing homelessness
who are at greater risk of exposure and susceptibility, and to support additional
homeless assistance and prevention activities to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19
within the community.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-21-HSD-41, was conducted in accordance with the City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Human Services Department received 20
offers on May 15, 2021 and 14 were determined responsive and responsible to the
Page 218
solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee comprised of staff and external stakeholders, evaluated all
proposals based on the outlined evaluation criteria, responsiveness to all the
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required service.
The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Cost and Fiscal Ability - 300 possible points
Organizational Capacity - 200 possible points
Service Methodology - 200 possible points
Strategies to Address Homelessness Plan Alignment - 200 possible points
Implementation Plan - 100 possible points
The Evaluation Committee reached consensus and determined that proposers with
scores of 700 or higher are eligible for award. Those proposers with scores higher than
700 are listed below:
Emergency Shelter
A New Leaf, Inc.: 945 points
UMOM New Day Centers, Inc.: 898 points
Community Bridges, Inc.: 843 points
Homeward Bound: 824 points
Child Crisis Arizona: 789 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc.: 762 points
The Salvation Army: 739 points
Homelessness Prevention
Homeward Bound: 930 points
Rapid Re-housing
A New Leaf, Inc.: 948 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc.: 731 points
Street Outreach
Community Bridges, Inc.: 869 points
Southwest Behavioral Health Services, Inc.: 863 points
The Salvation Army: 735 points
Based on the scoring, the amount of funding available and the amount of funding
requested, the following 10 proposals will receive funding. Individual contract amounts
will not exceed requested funding as indicated in the table below, but proposals could
Page 219
receive partial funding based on negotiation and eligible costs under federal regulation.
Available Funding: $9.1 million
Emergency Shelter
A New Leaf - $129,129
UMOM New Day - $1,529,000
Community Bridges - $371,223
Homeward Bound - $1,471,301
Child Crisis Arizona - $1,196,459
Central AZ Shelter Services - $1,093,260
Total - $5,790,372
Homeless Prevention
Homeward Bound - $827,494
Total - $827,494
Rapid Re-housing
A New Leaf - $1,169,963
Total - $1,169,963
Street Outreach
Community Bridges Inc. - $785,979
Southwest Behavioral Health Services - $584,198
Total - $1,370,177
Total All Proposals - $9,158,006
Contract Term
The term for each contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021, and end on Sept. 30,
2022.
Financial Impact
Aggregate expenditures will not exceed $9.1 million over the life of the contracts. One-
time funds are available from the ESG. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 220
Report
Proposals Contract Awards (Ordinance S-47793)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
responsive offerors for COVID-19 related homeless services eligible under the
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG). The ESG eligible program components include:
Emergency Shelter, Street Outreach, Rapid Rehousing, Homelessness Prevention,
Data Collection and/or Administration. The term for each contract will begin on or
about July 1, 2021 and end on Sept. 30, 2022. Aggregate expenditures will not exceed
$9.1 million over the life of the contracts. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The City of Phoenix was awarded $22.8 million in Emergency Solutions Grant - CV2
(ESG-CV2) and Community Development Block Grant funding for homeless support
services by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ESG
funds in the amount of $9.1 million were allocated to contract for homeless services in
the following categories: Emergency Shelter, Street Outreach, Rapid Rehousing,
Homelessness Prevention, Data Collection and/or Administration under the ESG
expenditure guidelines. In doing so, the City of Phoenix seeks to end an individual’s
homelessness through outreach and case management services, housing
stabilization, and the eventual provision of a pathway to permanent housing while
simultaneously adhering to Center for Disease Control recommendations to prioritize
efforts for vulnerable individuals due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Funding will be used to prevent, prepare for, and mitigate the effects of the
Coronavirus pandemic among individuals and/or families experiencing homelessness
who are at greater risk of exposure and susceptibility, and to support additional
homeless assistance and prevention activities to alleviate the impacts of COVID-19
within the community.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-21-HSD-41, was conducted in accordance with the City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Human Services Department received 20
offers on May 15, 2021 and 14 were determined responsive and responsible to the
Page 218
solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee comprised of staff and external stakeholders, evaluated all
proposals based on the outlined evaluation criteria, responsiveness to all the
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required service.
The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Cost and Fiscal Ability - 300 possible points
Organizational Capacity - 200 possible points
Service Methodology - 200 possible points
Strategies to Address Homelessness Plan Alignment - 200 possible points
Implementation Plan - 100 possible points
The Evaluation Committee reached consensus and determined that proposers with
scores of 700 or higher are eligible for award. Those proposers with scores higher than
700 are listed below:
Emergency Shelter
A New Leaf, Inc.: 945 points
UMOM New Day Centers, Inc.: 898 points
Community Bridges, Inc.: 843 points
Homeward Bound: 824 points
Child Crisis Arizona: 789 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc.: 762 points
The Salvation Army: 739 points
Homelessness Prevention
Homeward Bound: 930 points
Rapid Re-housing
A New Leaf, Inc.: 948 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc.: 731 points
Street Outreach
Community Bridges, Inc.: 869 points
Southwest Behavioral Health Services, Inc.: 863 points
The Salvation Army: 735 points
Based on the scoring, the amount of funding available and the amount of funding
requested, the following 10 proposals will receive funding. Individual contract amounts
will not exceed requested funding as indicated in the table below, but proposals could
Page 219
receive partial funding based on negotiation and eligible costs under federal regulation.
Available Funding: $9.1 million
Emergency Shelter
A New Leaf - $129,129
UMOM New Day - $1,529,000
Community Bridges - $371,223
Homeward Bound - $1,471,301
Child Crisis Arizona - $1,196,459
Central AZ Shelter Services - $1,093,260
Total - $5,790,372
Homeless Prevention
Homeward Bound - $827,494
Total - $827,494
Rapid Re-housing
A New Leaf - $1,169,963
Total - $1,169,963
Street Outreach
Community Bridges Inc. - $785,979
Southwest Behavioral Health Services - $584,198
Total - $1,370,177
Total All Proposals - $9,158,006
Contract Term
The term for each contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021, and end on Sept. 30,
2022.
Financial Impact
Aggregate expenditures will not exceed $9.1 million over the life of the contracts. One-
time funds are available from the ESG. There is no impact to the General Fund.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 220
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Community Development Block Grant CARES Act Homeless Shelter Expansion
and Improvements Grant Funded Request for Proposal (NSD-RFP-21-005) Award
Recommendations (Ordinance S-47805)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
two non-profit organizations for the expansion of homeless shelter facilities to prevent,
prepare for, and/or respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis among individuals
and families experiencing homelessness by providing additional shelter beds, and to
take all necessary or appropriate actions to implement and administer the program in
accordance with the grant terms. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item over the life of the agreements. These
agreements will be funded by the Community Development Block Grant authorized
through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The aggregate
amount of these agreements will not to exceed $8 million.
Summary
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council approved a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-
2020 Consolidated Plan’s 2019 Annual Action Plan, which included allocating first and
second rounds of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) funds to fund homeless support
public services and public facility improvements, or strategic acquisition of properties in
an effort to address community needs related to homelessness in response to the
national pandemic. $14 million was allocated to a Request for Proposals (RFP) to fund
facility acquisition and/or improvements to fulfill the need to expand and improve
homeless shelter facilities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.
Procurement Information
The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) invited qualified offerors to submit
proposals for the expansion and improvements of homeless shelter facilities. RFP 21-
005 was issued on April 15, 2021, in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three proposals were received on May 14, 2021. Two proposals were determined
responsive and responsible to the solicitation objectives and the RFP requirements.
The Evaluation Panel reviewed each proposal and evaluated them based on the RFP
evaluation criteria; responsiveness to all objectives, specifications, terms and
Page 221
conditions, and responsibility to provide the defined facility. The RFP evaluation criteria
scoring was as follows:
· Shelter Facility Operations - 250 possible points
· Strategies to Address Homelessness Plan Alignment - 250 possible points
· Project Feasibility - 250 possible points
· Project Costs - 250 possible points
The Evaluation Panel reached a consensus and recommended the following
organizations that met the agreed upon minimum threshold of 500 points for contract
award:
· Central Arizona Shelter Services - 840 points
· Community Bridges, Inc. - 612 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services will be contracted for up to $4 million of CDBG-CV
funds to help with acquisition and facility improvement costs for a new emergency
shelter bed facility focused on individuals experiencing homelessness over the age of
55 years old.
Community Bridges, Inc. will be contracted for up to $4 million of CDBG-CV funds to
help with the acquisition and facility improvement costs for a new emergency shelter
bed facility focused on single adults experiencing homelessness.
Contract Term
The term for each contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021 and end on June 30,
2023.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value for each contract will not exceed $4 million. Funding is
available through the CARES Act, CDBG-CV funds. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council approved Ordinance S-47330, authorizing a
Substantial Amendment to the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan's 2019-2020 Annual
Action Plan to include the second release of CDBG-CV and reallocation of CDBG-CV1
to fund homeless support public services and facility improvements, or strategic
acquisition projects.
Page 222
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Page 223
NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION
DATE: June 8, 2021
SOLICITATION: Homeless Shelter Expansion and Improvements Grant Program Request For
Proposal (NSD-RFP-21-005)
The City of Phoenix, Neighborhood Services Department, would like to thank all participants for
submitting a proposal for the above-mentioned Request for Proposal.
Proposals in response to the above referenced request have been evaluated by an evaluation
panel based on Proposal Requirements and Evaluation Criteria as set forth in the RFP. The
Neighborhood Services Department, in concurrence with the recommendation of the evaluation
panel, has selected the following proposers to advance for negotiation of contract terms and City
Council award.
No. ORGANIZATION
PF002 Central Arizona Shelter Services
PF003 Community Bridges, Inc.
Solicitation Transparency Policy:
As set forth in the solicitation’s requirements, Offerors are reminded that the City’s Solicitation
Transparency Policy is in effect through the date of City Council Award. Offerors and/or their
representatives wishing to communicate with members of the City Council or other City executives
regarding this solicitation shall direct all such requests through the Procurement Officer below.
Procurement Officer
Gioia Bufkin, Contracts Specialist II
NSD.Procurement@phoenix.gov
Page 224
Report
and Improvements Grant Funded Request for Proposal (NSD-RFP-21-005) Award
Recommendations (Ordinance S-47805)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into agreements with
two non-profit organizations for the expansion of homeless shelter facilities to prevent,
prepare for, and/or respond to the COVID-19 public health crisis among individuals
and families experiencing homelessness by providing additional shelter beds, and to
take all necessary or appropriate actions to implement and administer the program in
accordance with the grant terms. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item over the life of the agreements. These
agreements will be funded by the Community Development Block Grant authorized
through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act. The aggregate
amount of these agreements will not to exceed $8 million.
Summary
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council approved a Substantial Amendment to the 2015-
2020 Consolidated Plan’s 2019 Annual Action Plan, which included allocating first and
second rounds of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) funds to fund homeless support
public services and public facility improvements, or strategic acquisition of properties in
an effort to address community needs related to homelessness in response to the
national pandemic. $14 million was allocated to a Request for Proposals (RFP) to fund
facility acquisition and/or improvements to fulfill the need to expand and improve
homeless shelter facilities to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19.
Procurement Information
The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) invited qualified offerors to submit
proposals for the expansion and improvements of homeless shelter facilities. RFP 21-
005 was issued on April 15, 2021, in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Three proposals were received on May 14, 2021. Two proposals were determined
responsive and responsible to the solicitation objectives and the RFP requirements.
The Evaluation Panel reviewed each proposal and evaluated them based on the RFP
evaluation criteria; responsiveness to all objectives, specifications, terms and
Page 221
conditions, and responsibility to provide the defined facility. The RFP evaluation criteria
scoring was as follows:
· Shelter Facility Operations - 250 possible points
· Strategies to Address Homelessness Plan Alignment - 250 possible points
· Project Feasibility - 250 possible points
· Project Costs - 250 possible points
The Evaluation Panel reached a consensus and recommended the following
organizations that met the agreed upon minimum threshold of 500 points for contract
award:
· Central Arizona Shelter Services - 840 points
· Community Bridges, Inc. - 612 points
Central Arizona Shelter Services will be contracted for up to $4 million of CDBG-CV
funds to help with acquisition and facility improvement costs for a new emergency
shelter bed facility focused on individuals experiencing homelessness over the age of
55 years old.
Community Bridges, Inc. will be contracted for up to $4 million of CDBG-CV funds to
help with the acquisition and facility improvement costs for a new emergency shelter
bed facility focused on single adults experiencing homelessness.
Contract Term
The term for each contract will begin on or about July 1, 2021 and end on June 30,
2023.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value for each contract will not exceed $4 million. Funding is
available through the CARES Act, CDBG-CV funds. There is no impact to the General
Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Feb. 17, 2021, the City Council approved Ordinance S-47330, authorizing a
Substantial Amendment to the 2015-2020 Consolidated Plan's 2019-2020 Annual
Action Plan to include the second release of CDBG-CV and reallocation of CDBG-CV1
to fund homeless support public services and facility improvements, or strategic
acquisition projects.
Page 222
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Neighborhood
Services Department.
Page 223
NOTICE OF AWARD RECOMMENDATION
DATE: June 8, 2021
SOLICITATION: Homeless Shelter Expansion and Improvements Grant Program Request For
Proposal (NSD-RFP-21-005)
The City of Phoenix, Neighborhood Services Department, would like to thank all participants for
submitting a proposal for the above-mentioned Request for Proposal.
Proposals in response to the above referenced request have been evaluated by an evaluation
panel based on Proposal Requirements and Evaluation Criteria as set forth in the RFP. The
Neighborhood Services Department, in concurrence with the recommendation of the evaluation
panel, has selected the following proposers to advance for negotiation of contract terms and City
Council award.
No. ORGANIZATION
PF002 Central Arizona Shelter Services
PF003 Community Bridges, Inc.
Solicitation Transparency Policy:
As set forth in the solicitation’s requirements, Offerors are reminded that the City’s Solicitation
Transparency Policy is in effect through the date of City Council Award. Offerors and/or their
representatives wishing to communicate with members of the City Council or other City executives
regarding this solicitation shall direct all such requests through the Procurement Officer below.
Procurement Officer
Gioia Bufkin, Contracts Specialist II
NSD.Procurement@phoenix.gov
Page 224
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Apply for Area Agency on Aging, Region One, Inc. Grant for Home Delivered
Meals Program (Ordinance S-47799)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for funding and enter
into an agreement with Area Agency on Aging, Region One, Inc. (AAA) to accept home
delivered meals funding in an amount not to exceed $5,425,370 for the period
beginning July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
In Spring 2019, the City of Phoenix was awarded a five-year grant which began July 1,
2019 and ends June 30, 2024. Funds provided to the City of Phoenix through AAA are
used to fund the City’s Home Delivered Meals (HDM) program. The HDM program
assists with increasing the nutrient intake of older adults at nutritional risk to allow
them to remain independent in their homes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, service
needs have increased as more seniors have become homebound. As a result, AAA
has increased funding to the City of Phoenix for the HDM program. The Human
Services Department (HSD) prepares and delivers approximately 585,717 nutritionally
balanced meals to homebound and disabled seniors annually.
Contract Term
The initial term of the contract under the five-year grant began July 1, 2019 through
June 30, 2020, with four one-year options to extend. AAA determines if it exercises an
option to extend. As such, the City of Phoenix is required to reapply for funding each
optional year of the grant.
The term of this contract will be for the extension of the second-year option which will
begin July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. If provided by AAA, the City of Phoenix will
reapply for funding for the third option in 2022 and the fourth option in 2023.
Financial Impact
The total contract amount shall not exceed $5,425,370 for the term beginning July 1,
2021 through June 30, 2022. There is a 10 percent match of $200,000 on the first $2
million of each annual award. Funding is available in the HSD budget.
Page 225
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-44610 was adopted on May 16, 2018, authorizing HSD to contract with
Selrico Services, Inc., for food management of the Senior Congregate and HDM
programs. The contract term for Selrico is July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2023, with
one two-year option to extend.
Ordinance S-45521 was adopted on April 3, 2019, authorizing HSD to apply for, accept
funding from and enter into the initial contract with AAA for an amount up to
$2,082,325 annually.
Ordinance S-47112 was adopted on Nov. 18, 2020, authorizing HSD to accept an
additional $2,843,045 in funding for fiscal year 2020-21.
Ordinance S-47312 was adopted on Feb. 17, 2021, authorizing HSD to accept an
additional $500,000 in funding for fiscal year 2020-21.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 226
Report
Meals Program (Ordinance S-47799)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for funding and enter
into an agreement with Area Agency on Aging, Region One, Inc. (AAA) to accept home
delivered meals funding in an amount not to exceed $5,425,370 for the period
beginning July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
In Spring 2019, the City of Phoenix was awarded a five-year grant which began July 1,
2019 and ends June 30, 2024. Funds provided to the City of Phoenix through AAA are
used to fund the City’s Home Delivered Meals (HDM) program. The HDM program
assists with increasing the nutrient intake of older adults at nutritional risk to allow
them to remain independent in their homes. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, service
needs have increased as more seniors have become homebound. As a result, AAA
has increased funding to the City of Phoenix for the HDM program. The Human
Services Department (HSD) prepares and delivers approximately 585,717 nutritionally
balanced meals to homebound and disabled seniors annually.
Contract Term
The initial term of the contract under the five-year grant began July 1, 2019 through
June 30, 2020, with four one-year options to extend. AAA determines if it exercises an
option to extend. As such, the City of Phoenix is required to reapply for funding each
optional year of the grant.
The term of this contract will be for the extension of the second-year option which will
begin July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. If provided by AAA, the City of Phoenix will
reapply for funding for the third option in 2022 and the fourth option in 2023.
Financial Impact
The total contract amount shall not exceed $5,425,370 for the term beginning July 1,
2021 through June 30, 2022. There is a 10 percent match of $200,000 on the first $2
million of each annual award. Funding is available in the HSD budget.
Page 225
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-44610 was adopted on May 16, 2018, authorizing HSD to contract with
Selrico Services, Inc., for food management of the Senior Congregate and HDM
programs. The contract term for Selrico is July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2023, with
one two-year option to extend.
Ordinance S-45521 was adopted on April 3, 2019, authorizing HSD to apply for, accept
funding from and enter into the initial contract with AAA for an amount up to
$2,082,325 annually.
Ordinance S-47112 was adopted on Nov. 18, 2020, authorizing HSD to accept an
additional $2,843,045 in funding for fiscal year 2020-21.
Ordinance S-47312 was adopted on Feb. 17, 2021, authorizing HSD to accept an
additional $500,000 in funding for fiscal year 2020-21.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 226
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
National Endowment for the Arts Grants for Arts Projects (Ordinance S-47815)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and,
if awarded, enter into an agreement for up to $100,000 in National Endowment for the
Arts for Arts Projects (Local Arts Agency) funding. The grant funds would be used by
the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 to continue the
City's Neighborhood Arts program. Further authorize the City Treasurer to accept and
the City Controller to disburse the funds for purposes of this ordinance.
Summary
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Grants for Arts Project (Local Arts Agency)
program is a flexible funding category developed to recognize and assist the cultural
programming and achievements of the nation's local arts agencies. The Office of Arts
and Culture is the designated local arts agency for the City of Phoenix.
If awarded, the grant funds will be used to continue the Neighborhood Arts Program in
FY 2022-23. Funding has already been secured for FY 2021-22. The NEA funds will
enable the department to provide grant funds to neighborhood groups that will lead
collaborative arts and culture projects and programming in Phoenix neighborhoods
that don't regularly receive arts funding, over a two-year period. These groups will
receive grant funds as well as professional development and mentorship to build
partnerships and project sustainability after the grant period.
Financial Impact
The NEA Grants for Arts Projects (Local Arts Agency) program requires a one-to-one
match by applicants. The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture FY 2022-23 General Fund
appropriation will be used to match the grant award.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 227
Report
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and,
if awarded, enter into an agreement for up to $100,000 in National Endowment for the
Arts for Arts Projects (Local Arts Agency) funding. The grant funds would be used by
the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture in Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 to continue the
City's Neighborhood Arts program. Further authorize the City Treasurer to accept and
the City Controller to disburse the funds for purposes of this ordinance.
Summary
The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) Grants for Arts Project (Local Arts Agency)
program is a flexible funding category developed to recognize and assist the cultural
programming and achievements of the nation's local arts agencies. The Office of Arts
and Culture is the designated local arts agency for the City of Phoenix.
If awarded, the grant funds will be used to continue the Neighborhood Arts Program in
FY 2022-23. Funding has already been secured for FY 2021-22. The NEA funds will
enable the department to provide grant funds to neighborhood groups that will lead
collaborative arts and culture projects and programming in Phoenix neighborhoods
that don't regularly receive arts funding, over a two-year period. These groups will
receive grant funds as well as professional development and mentorship to build
partnerships and project sustainability after the grant period.
Financial Impact
The NEA Grants for Arts Projects (Local Arts Agency) program requires a one-to-one
match by applicants. The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture FY 2022-23 General Fund
appropriation will be used to match the grant award.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 227
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Fiscal Year 2021-22 Community Arts Support Grant Allocations (Ordinance S-
47820)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary
agreements between the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and approved applicants
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 General Support Program and Project Support Program
grants in an aggregate amount of $970,936. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture has administered the Community Arts Grants
Program since 1986. The program includes three tiers of core operating support grants
called General Support Program (GSP) grants, and Project Support Program (PSP)
grants for artistic and cultural projects that engage Phoenix residents.
To be eligible for any category of funding, an organization must be a registered non-
profit arts or cultural organization, must have tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and must provide a cultural service to Phoenix
residents. For youth-focused PSP grants, an applicant can be a school or registered
non-profit organization with an arts or culture program. Organizations without tax-
exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Services Code may
apply to the project categories using a fiscal agent with tax-exempt status. This policy
allows the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture to broaden the reach of the grant
program to small, emerging arts and cultural organizations and, through the fiscal
agent partnership, establish relationships between large and small organizations in the
hope that traditional partnering opportunities and resources sharing may develop.
Funding allocations totaling $970,936 are requested by 88 organizations (Attachment
A). This total is made up of $925,346 in General Fund support and $45,590 in funding
from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). In July 2020, the Phoenix Office of
Arts and Culture was initially awarded $250,000 in CARES Act funding from the NEA
to regrant to Phoenix arts organizations, which it did. In April 2021, the NEA awarded
the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture $45,590 in additional CARES Act funding to
regrant. In June 2021, the NEA approved supplementing the Community Arts Grants
Program with the additional CARES Act funding.
Page 228
All grant applications for the Community Arts Grants Program were due to the Office of
Arts and Culture on April 1, 2021. Ninety-four applications were received and reviewed
by panels made up of laypersons, artists, arts professionals, and educators to ensure
a thorough and unbiased review. Panel recommendations were then forwarded to the
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission to review and recommend for funding, ensuring
these organizations are good stewards of public support.
General Support Program (GSP) grants strengthen the community's access to arts
and culture programming. The program provides core operating support to arts and
cultural organizations of all sizes that have a primary mission to create, produce, or
provide arts and cultural programming to enhance the quality of lives for Phoenix
residents. GSP grant allocations are determined by the ranking an applicant received
during the panel review of the following criteria:
1. Artistic/Cultural Value
2. Community Significance
3. Financial and Leadership Capacity
In GSP Level I, organizations must have a total operating budget of at least $2.5
million. Thirteen organizations are recommended for funding totaling $387,256, with
each receiving grant awards between $21,000 and $36,256.
In GSP Level II, organizations must have a budget between $250,000 and $2,499,999.
There are 28 organizations recommended for funding totaling $385,000, with each
receiving grant awards between $9,000 and $18,000.
For FY 2022, GSP Level III grantees must have a budget between $5,000 (adjusted
from $25,000 in FY21) and $249,999. A total of 19 organizations are recommended for
funding totaling $130,000, with each receiving grant awards between $5,000 and
$9,000.
Project Support Program (PSP) grants promote and encourage the breadth of arts
and cultural programming in our community by supporting projects both large and
small throughout the City of Phoenix.
The program supports guest artist fees/expenses, production fees, and marketing
expenses for in-person, socially distanced, and/or virtual projects that engage
residents, including but not limited to, arts workshops, popup performances, and
collaborations with artists. Applicants request an amount of up to $2,500 to fund their
proposed project. Allocations are determined by the ranking an applicant received
during the panel review of the following criteria:
Page 229
1. Artistic/Cultural Value
2. Community Significance
3. Logistics and Accessibility
Twenty-eight organizations are recommended for PSP funding totaling $68,680.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and approved the FY 2021-22
Community Arts Grants Program allocation recommendations at its meeting on June
15, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 230
ATTACHMENT A
Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture Community Arts Grants Program FY22 Funding Recommendations
Category Organization Amount
General Support I ARIZONA CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION (Phoenix Zoo) $36,256.00
General Support I ARIZONA OPERA COMPANY $25,000.00
General Support I ARIZONA SCIENCE CENTER $28,000.00
General Support I ARIZONA THEATRE COMPANY $30,000.00
General Support I BALLET ARIZONA $23,000.00
General Support I CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF PHOENIX $34,500.00
General Support I CHILDSPLAY INC $33,000.00
General Support I DESERT BOTANICAL GARDEN $30,000.00
General Support I HEARD MUSEUM $33,000.00
General Support I MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MUSEUM $31,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX ART MUSEUM $21,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX SYMPHONY $28,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX THEATRE INC $34,500.00
General Support II ACT ONE $13,000.00
General Support II ARIZONA JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY $14,000.00
General Support II BLACK THEATRE TROUPE INC $13,000.00
General Support II CALA ALLIANCE $14,000.00
General Support II CENTRAL ARTS ALLIANCE (Phoenix Center for the Arts) $14,000.00
General Support II FREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA $15,000.00
General Support II GREAT ARIZONA PUPPET THEATER INC $15,000.00
General Support II HERITAGE SQUARE FOUNDATION $13,000.00
General Support II JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP GARDEN OF PHOENIX INC $12,000.00
General Support II JAZZ IN ARIZONA INC $15,000.00
General Support II KIDS IN FOCUS $12,000.00
General Support II MUSICAL THEATRE OF ANTHEM INC $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX BOYS CHOIR ASSOCIATION $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CHILDREN'S CHORUS INC $17,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC $16,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX FILM FOUNDATION $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX GIRLS CHORUS $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX PERFORMING ARTS CENTER INC (Herberger Theater Center) $13,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX PRIDE INCORPORATED $9,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX SYMPHONY GUILD (Phoenix Youth Symphony Orchestra) $13,000.00
General Support II RISING YOUTH THEATRE $18,000.00
General Support II ROSIE'S HOUSE A MUSIC ACADEMY FOR CHILDREN INC $15,000.00
General Support II SHEMER ART CENTER AND MUSEUM ASSOCIATION INC $9,000.00
General Support II SOUNDS ACADEMY $14,000.00
General Support II THE PHOENIX CHORALE $12,000.00
General Support II VALLEY YOUTH THEATRE $15,000.00
General Support II XICO INC $14,000.00
General Support III ALMOST FAMOUS THEATRE COMPANY FOUNDATION $5,000.00
General Support III ALWUN HOUSE FOUNDATION $7,000.00
Page 231
General Support III ARTLINK INC $6,000.00
General Support III CULTURAL COALITION INC $7,000.00
General Support III GRAND CANYON MENS CHORALE $7,000.00
General Support III HARMONY PROJECT PHOENIX $9,000.00
General Support III MUSICA NOVA INC $8,000.00
General Support III NORTH VALLEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC $7,000.00
General Support III NUEBOX $8,000.00
General Support III ORPHEUS MALE CHORUS OF PHOENIX $6,000.00
General Support III PHOENIX WOMEN'S CHORUS $8,000.00
General Support III PHONETIC SPIT $8,000.00
General Support III RED ROCKS MUSIC FESTIVAL $6,000.00
General Support III REFRAME YOUTH ARTS CENTER $7,000.00
General Support III ROOSEVELT ROW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION $5,000.00
General Support III SCORPIUS DANCE THEATRE $5,000.00
General Support III TEATRO BRAVO $5,000.00
General Support III THE SAGRADO $8,000.00
General Support III YOUNG ARTS ARIZONA LTD $8,000.00
Project Support AFRICAN ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA $2,500.00
Project Support ARAB AMERICAN FESTIVAL $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA LGBT+ HISTORY PROJECT $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA MASTERS OF POETRY $2,480.00
Project Support ARIZONA MASTERWORKS CHORALE INC $1,800.00
Project Support ARIZONA MATSURI $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA TALKING DRUM PERFORMANCE STUDIO NETWORK $2,500.00
Project Support BALKAN COMMUNITY CULTURE AND HERITAGE ORGANIZATION $2,500.00
Project Support BHAKTIVEDANTA CULTURAL CENTER OF PHOENIX INC. $2,500.00
Project Support CIHUAPACTLI COLLECTIVE $2,500.00
Project Support CULTURAL ARTS COALITION CELEBRATING GLOBAL CONNECTIONS $2,500.00
Project Support EDUMUSICATION $2,500.00
Project Support FURIOUS STYLES CREW $2,500.00
Project Support GENESIS PROGRAM INC. $2,500.00
Project Support GREY BOX COLLECTIVE $2,500.00
Project Support HEARTSY $2,500.00
Project Support METHODS OF MADNESS DANCE THEATER $2,500.00
Project Support MOVEMENT SOURCE INC $2,200.00
Project Support OWLSONG PRODUCTIONS INC. $2,500.00
Project Support PACHANGA $2,500.00
Project Support PHOENIX INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART $2,500.00
Project Support PHOENIX YOUTH CIRCUS ARTS - TAPAZ $2,500.00
Project Support PLAYBACK ARIZONA $2,200.00
Project Support SHADOW MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL $2,500.00
Project Support SOUL WEST FEST FOUNDATION $2,500.00
Project Support SUNNYSLOPE HISTORICAL SOCIETY $2,500.00
Project Support YES AND PRODUCTIONS $2,500.00
Project Support YOUNG SOUNDS OF ARIZONA $2,500.00
TOTAL $970,936.00
Page 232
Report
47820)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute all necessary
agreements between the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture and approved applicants
for Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 General Support Program and Project Support Program
grants in an aggregate amount of $970,936. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture has administered the Community Arts Grants
Program since 1986. The program includes three tiers of core operating support grants
called General Support Program (GSP) grants, and Project Support Program (PSP)
grants for artistic and cultural projects that engage Phoenix residents.
To be eligible for any category of funding, an organization must be a registered non-
profit arts or cultural organization, must have tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)
(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and must provide a cultural service to Phoenix
residents. For youth-focused PSP grants, an applicant can be a school or registered
non-profit organization with an arts or culture program. Organizations without tax-
exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Services Code may
apply to the project categories using a fiscal agent with tax-exempt status. This policy
allows the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture to broaden the reach of the grant
program to small, emerging arts and cultural organizations and, through the fiscal
agent partnership, establish relationships between large and small organizations in the
hope that traditional partnering opportunities and resources sharing may develop.
Funding allocations totaling $970,936 are requested by 88 organizations (Attachment
A). This total is made up of $925,346 in General Fund support and $45,590 in funding
from the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). In July 2020, the Phoenix Office of
Arts and Culture was initially awarded $250,000 in CARES Act funding from the NEA
to regrant to Phoenix arts organizations, which it did. In April 2021, the NEA awarded
the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture $45,590 in additional CARES Act funding to
regrant. In June 2021, the NEA approved supplementing the Community Arts Grants
Program with the additional CARES Act funding.
Page 228
All grant applications for the Community Arts Grants Program were due to the Office of
Arts and Culture on April 1, 2021. Ninety-four applications were received and reviewed
by panels made up of laypersons, artists, arts professionals, and educators to ensure
a thorough and unbiased review. Panel recommendations were then forwarded to the
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission to review and recommend for funding, ensuring
these organizations are good stewards of public support.
General Support Program (GSP) grants strengthen the community's access to arts
and culture programming. The program provides core operating support to arts and
cultural organizations of all sizes that have a primary mission to create, produce, or
provide arts and cultural programming to enhance the quality of lives for Phoenix
residents. GSP grant allocations are determined by the ranking an applicant received
during the panel review of the following criteria:
1. Artistic/Cultural Value
2. Community Significance
3. Financial and Leadership Capacity
In GSP Level I, organizations must have a total operating budget of at least $2.5
million. Thirteen organizations are recommended for funding totaling $387,256, with
each receiving grant awards between $21,000 and $36,256.
In GSP Level II, organizations must have a budget between $250,000 and $2,499,999.
There are 28 organizations recommended for funding totaling $385,000, with each
receiving grant awards between $9,000 and $18,000.
For FY 2022, GSP Level III grantees must have a budget between $5,000 (adjusted
from $25,000 in FY21) and $249,999. A total of 19 organizations are recommended for
funding totaling $130,000, with each receiving grant awards between $5,000 and
$9,000.
Project Support Program (PSP) grants promote and encourage the breadth of arts
and cultural programming in our community by supporting projects both large and
small throughout the City of Phoenix.
The program supports guest artist fees/expenses, production fees, and marketing
expenses for in-person, socially distanced, and/or virtual projects that engage
residents, including but not limited to, arts workshops, popup performances, and
collaborations with artists. Applicants request an amount of up to $2,500 to fund their
proposed project. Allocations are determined by the ranking an applicant received
during the panel review of the following criteria:
Page 229
1. Artistic/Cultural Value
2. Community Significance
3. Logistics and Accessibility
Twenty-eight organizations are recommended for PSP funding totaling $68,680.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission reviewed and approved the FY 2021-22
Community Arts Grants Program allocation recommendations at its meeting on June
15, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix Office
of Arts and Culture.
Page 230
ATTACHMENT A
Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture Community Arts Grants Program FY22 Funding Recommendations
Category Organization Amount
General Support I ARIZONA CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION (Phoenix Zoo) $36,256.00
General Support I ARIZONA OPERA COMPANY $25,000.00
General Support I ARIZONA SCIENCE CENTER $28,000.00
General Support I ARIZONA THEATRE COMPANY $30,000.00
General Support I BALLET ARIZONA $23,000.00
General Support I CHILDREN'S MUSEUM OF PHOENIX $34,500.00
General Support I CHILDSPLAY INC $33,000.00
General Support I DESERT BOTANICAL GARDEN $30,000.00
General Support I HEARD MUSEUM $33,000.00
General Support I MUSICAL INSTRUMENT MUSEUM $31,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX ART MUSEUM $21,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX SYMPHONY $28,000.00
General Support I PHOENIX THEATRE INC $34,500.00
General Support II ACT ONE $13,000.00
General Support II ARIZONA JEWISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY $14,000.00
General Support II BLACK THEATRE TROUPE INC $13,000.00
General Support II CALA ALLIANCE $14,000.00
General Support II CENTRAL ARTS ALLIANCE (Phoenix Center for the Arts) $14,000.00
General Support II FREE ARTS FOR ABUSED CHILDREN OF ARIZONA $15,000.00
General Support II GREAT ARIZONA PUPPET THEATER INC $15,000.00
General Support II HERITAGE SQUARE FOUNDATION $13,000.00
General Support II JAPANESE FRIENDSHIP GARDEN OF PHOENIX INC $12,000.00
General Support II JAZZ IN ARIZONA INC $15,000.00
General Support II KIDS IN FOCUS $12,000.00
General Support II MUSICAL THEATRE OF ANTHEM INC $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX BOYS CHOIR ASSOCIATION $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CHAMBER MUSIC SOCIETY $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CHILDREN'S CHORUS INC $17,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC $16,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX FILM FOUNDATION $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX GIRLS CHORUS $14,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX PERFORMING ARTS CENTER INC (Herberger Theater Center) $13,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX PRIDE INCORPORATED $9,000.00
General Support II PHOENIX SYMPHONY GUILD (Phoenix Youth Symphony Orchestra) $13,000.00
General Support II RISING YOUTH THEATRE $18,000.00
General Support II ROSIE'S HOUSE A MUSIC ACADEMY FOR CHILDREN INC $15,000.00
General Support II SHEMER ART CENTER AND MUSEUM ASSOCIATION INC $9,000.00
General Support II SOUNDS ACADEMY $14,000.00
General Support II THE PHOENIX CHORALE $12,000.00
General Support II VALLEY YOUTH THEATRE $15,000.00
General Support II XICO INC $14,000.00
General Support III ALMOST FAMOUS THEATRE COMPANY FOUNDATION $5,000.00
General Support III ALWUN HOUSE FOUNDATION $7,000.00
Page 231
General Support III ARTLINK INC $6,000.00
General Support III CULTURAL COALITION INC $7,000.00
General Support III GRAND CANYON MENS CHORALE $7,000.00
General Support III HARMONY PROJECT PHOENIX $9,000.00
General Support III MUSICA NOVA INC $8,000.00
General Support III NORTH VALLEY SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA INC $7,000.00
General Support III NUEBOX $8,000.00
General Support III ORPHEUS MALE CHORUS OF PHOENIX $6,000.00
General Support III PHOENIX WOMEN'S CHORUS $8,000.00
General Support III PHONETIC SPIT $8,000.00
General Support III RED ROCKS MUSIC FESTIVAL $6,000.00
General Support III REFRAME YOUTH ARTS CENTER $7,000.00
General Support III ROOSEVELT ROW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTCORPORATION $5,000.00
General Support III SCORPIUS DANCE THEATRE $5,000.00
General Support III TEATRO BRAVO $5,000.00
General Support III THE SAGRADO $8,000.00
General Support III YOUNG ARTS ARIZONA LTD $8,000.00
Project Support AFRICAN ASSOCIATION OF ARIZONA $2,500.00
Project Support ARAB AMERICAN FESTIVAL $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA LGBT+ HISTORY PROJECT $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA MASTERS OF POETRY $2,480.00
Project Support ARIZONA MASTERWORKS CHORALE INC $1,800.00
Project Support ARIZONA MATSURI $2,500.00
Project Support ARIZONA TALKING DRUM PERFORMANCE STUDIO NETWORK $2,500.00
Project Support BALKAN COMMUNITY CULTURE AND HERITAGE ORGANIZATION $2,500.00
Project Support BHAKTIVEDANTA CULTURAL CENTER OF PHOENIX INC. $2,500.00
Project Support CIHUAPACTLI COLLECTIVE $2,500.00
Project Support CULTURAL ARTS COALITION CELEBRATING GLOBAL CONNECTIONS $2,500.00
Project Support EDUMUSICATION $2,500.00
Project Support FURIOUS STYLES CREW $2,500.00
Project Support GENESIS PROGRAM INC. $2,500.00
Project Support GREY BOX COLLECTIVE $2,500.00
Project Support HEARTSY $2,500.00
Project Support METHODS OF MADNESS DANCE THEATER $2,500.00
Project Support MOVEMENT SOURCE INC $2,200.00
Project Support OWLSONG PRODUCTIONS INC. $2,500.00
Project Support PACHANGA $2,500.00
Project Support PHOENIX INSTITUTE OF CONTEMPORARY ART $2,500.00
Project Support PHOENIX YOUTH CIRCUS ARTS - TAPAZ $2,500.00
Project Support PLAYBACK ARIZONA $2,200.00
Project Support SHADOW MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHOOL $2,500.00
Project Support SOUL WEST FEST FOUNDATION $2,500.00
Project Support SUNNYSLOPE HISTORICAL SOCIETY $2,500.00
Project Support YES AND PRODUCTIONS $2,500.00
Project Support YOUNG SOUNDS OF ARIZONA $2,500.00
TOTAL $970,936.00
Page 232
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Golf Management System Request for Proposals
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for a Golf Management System in the Parks and Recreation Department.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department requires updated golf management software,
which will be the new point of sale system for bookings, payment of tee times and
purchasing of items. The system will also provide tracking, reporting of revenue
streams and serve as an email marketing tool to increase marketing tactics. The
purpose of the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be to identify an experienced
organization that can develop, implement, train, manage and support a system that will
provide an enhancement to the City's five municipal golf courses.
The current agreement providing similar services will expire in the spring of 2022, and
a new agreement is needed to ensure the continuity of golf management software
services and to provide needed updates. If a new vendor is selected, the resulting
agreement will start approximately six months before the current agreement expires, to
allow for configuration and implementation of data into the golf management software
system.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
The RFP will contain evaluation criteria and processes in alignment with the required
services and may include a combination of the following:
· Cost/Price
· Qualifications, Experience and Past Performance of Proposer
· Qualification and Experience of Proposer's Staff
· Method of Approach and Transition Plan
· Technology Business Requirements
· Proposed Organizational Structure and Personnel
Page 233
Contract Term
The resulting agreement term will be for five years starting on or about Oct. 1, 2021,
with one, five-year renewal option which may be exercised at the City's discretion.
Financial Impact
The current agreement has no impact to the General Fund. Vendor fees are deducted
from golf revenue. Staff anticipates entering into a similarly structured agreement with
the successful proposer.
Location
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Toni Maccarone
and the Parks and Recreation and Information Technology Services departments.
Page 234
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals for a Golf Management System in the Parks and Recreation Department.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department requires updated golf management software,
which will be the new point of sale system for bookings, payment of tee times and
purchasing of items. The system will also provide tracking, reporting of revenue
streams and serve as an email marketing tool to increase marketing tactics. The
purpose of the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be to identify an experienced
organization that can develop, implement, train, manage and support a system that will
provide an enhancement to the City's five municipal golf courses.
The current agreement providing similar services will expire in the spring of 2022, and
a new agreement is needed to ensure the continuity of golf management software
services and to provide needed updates. If a new vendor is selected, the resulting
agreement will start approximately six months before the current agreement expires, to
allow for configuration and implementation of data into the golf management software
system.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
The RFP will contain evaluation criteria and processes in alignment with the required
services and may include a combination of the following:
· Cost/Price
· Qualifications, Experience and Past Performance of Proposer
· Qualification and Experience of Proposer's Staff
· Method of Approach and Transition Plan
· Technology Business Requirements
· Proposed Organizational Structure and Personnel
Page 233
Contract Term
The resulting agreement term will be for five years starting on or about Oct. 1, 2021,
with one, five-year renewal option which may be exercised at the City's discretion.
Financial Impact
The current agreement has no impact to the General Fund. Vendor fees are deducted
from golf revenue. Staff anticipates entering into a similarly structured agreement with
the successful proposer.
Location
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Toni Maccarone
and the Parks and Recreation and Information Technology Services departments.
Page 234
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Golf Scorecards Request for Proposals
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the City's municipal golf course scorecards.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department currently has a contract with Transportation
Media, Inc. dba Bench Craft Company, to provide goods and services for
advertisement of all products (benches, tee signs, ball washers and golf scorecards),
with no cost to the City. Under the terms of the agreement, the contractor pays the City
a set fee to provide free scorecards to the public. The current agreement will expire in
February 2022; therefore, a RFP is necessary to procure these services.
Procurement Information
The RFP will contain evaluation criteria and processes in alignment with the required
services and may include a combination of the following:
Cost/Price (Revenue Based)
Qualifications and Experience
Method of Approach
Marketing and/or Sponsorship Opportunities Plan
Contract Term
The resulting agreement term will be for three years starting on or about Feb. 1, 2022,
with two, one-year renewal options which may be exercised at the City's discretion.
Financial Impact
There is no anticipated impact to the General Fund. The department expects to
receive a set revenue, annually for any resulting contract.
Location
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Page 235
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 236
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the City's municipal golf course scorecards.
Summary
The Parks and Recreation Department currently has a contract with Transportation
Media, Inc. dba Bench Craft Company, to provide goods and services for
advertisement of all products (benches, tee signs, ball washers and golf scorecards),
with no cost to the City. Under the terms of the agreement, the contractor pays the City
a set fee to provide free scorecards to the public. The current agreement will expire in
February 2022; therefore, a RFP is necessary to procure these services.
Procurement Information
The RFP will contain evaluation criteria and processes in alignment with the required
services and may include a combination of the following:
Cost/Price (Revenue Based)
Qualifications and Experience
Method of Approach
Marketing and/or Sponsorship Opportunities Plan
Contract Term
The resulting agreement term will be for three years starting on or about Feb. 1, 2022,
with two, one-year renewal options which may be exercised at the City's discretion.
Financial Impact
There is no anticipated impact to the General Fund. The department expects to
receive a set revenue, annually for any resulting contract.
Location
Council Districts: 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Page 235
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 236
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Reopening of Community Centers and Pools in the Parks and Recreation
Department
This report provides an update to the City Council on the status of reopening
community centers in the Parks and Recreation Department and requests City Council
approval to increase capacities for open swim and swim lessons at Phoenix pools and
to remove the requirement that youth must be accompanied by someone at least 16
years old for open swim.
Summary
On May 5, 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Parks and Recreation
Department’s tiered reopening plan, based on feedback from the City’s contracted
public health professional and the City of Phoenix overall risk category per the Arizona
Department of Health Services (AZDHS) Community Transmission Indicators.
The Parks and Recreation Department implemented the plan with the opening of 11
large community centers for summer youth camps and registered programs on June 7.
The camps provide activities for youth ages six to 12 and are at 65 percent registration
capacity overall, with open spots available at all centers.
The reopening plan also called for the department to move into the next phase of
reopening when the AZDHS Community Transmission reached the Moderate
Transmission category. On June 10, the overall risk category reached the Moderate
Transmission category. Therefore, effective June 21, the 11 open community centers
increased program capacity to 75 percent; fitness rooms opened at 50 percent
capacity; and other gym activities became available by reservation.
Further, effective June 28, 2021, Tier 2 small centers opened at the same capacity
percentages. Centers that do not offer formal summer recreation programs opened for
drop-in recreation activities for select classes and programs, which will require
registration and/or appointments. All community centers are now open
(Attachment A).
To align with increased capacities at indoor facilities, staff is requesting City Council
approval to increase capacity limits at the pools. At present, open swim and swim
Page 237
lessons are offered at modified capacities. The department is recommending to
increase open swim and swim lessons to 100 percent capacities and remove the
requirement that youth must be accompanied by someone at least 16 years old for
open swim upon approval.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 238
Attachment A
Parks and Recreation Department Community Centers
Tier 1 Centers (14) – Opened June 7
Aeroterra Community Center (1725 E. McKinley St.) *
Deer Valley Community Center (2001 W. Wahalla Ln.)
Desert West Community Center (6501 W. Virginia Ave.)
Eastlake Community Center (1549 E. Jefferson St.)
Goelet A.C Beuf Community Center (3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd.)
Longview Neighborhood Recreation Center (4040 N. 14th St.)
Luke Krohn (1940 1/2 E. Villa St.) *
Maryvale Community Center (4420 N. 67th Ave.)
Paradise Valley Community Center (17402 N. 40th St.)
Pecos Community Center (17010 S. 48th St.)
Sidney P. Osborn (1720 E. Adams St.) *
South Mountain Community Center (212 E. Alta Vista Rd.)
Sunnyslope Community Center (802 E. Vogel Ave.)
Washington Activity Center (2240 W. Citrus Way)
Tier 2 Centers (16) – Opened June 28
Bret Tarver Learning Center (1516 N. 35th Ave.)
Coffelt-Lamoreaux Recreation Center (1510 S. 19th Dr.) **
Devonshire Senior Center (2802 E. Devonshire Ave.)
Faye Gray Recreation Center (5550 S. 20th St.)
Harmon Recreation Center (1425 S. 5th Ave.)
Hayden Neighborhood Recreation Center (420 W. Tamarisk Ave.)
Holiday Park Recreation Center (4560 N. 67th Ave.)
Marc Atkinson Recreation Center (4535 N. 23rd Ave.)
Mountain View Community Center (1104 E. Grovers Ave.)
Muriel Smith Recreation Center (2230 W. Roeser Ave.)
Playa Margarita Recreation Center (3615 W. Roeser Ave.)
South Phoenix Youth Center (5245 S. 7th St.)
Sunnyslope Youth Center (1702 W. Peoria Ave.)
University Park Recreation Center (1002 W. Van Buren St.)
Verde Park Recreation Center (916 E. Van Buren St.)
Vernell Coleman Recreation Center (830 W. Tonto St.) *
* denotes Housing Department site
** denotes Maricopa County site
Page 239
Report
Department
This report provides an update to the City Council on the status of reopening
community centers in the Parks and Recreation Department and requests City Council
approval to increase capacities for open swim and swim lessons at Phoenix pools and
to remove the requirement that youth must be accompanied by someone at least 16
years old for open swim.
Summary
On May 5, 2021, the Phoenix City Council approved the Parks and Recreation
Department’s tiered reopening plan, based on feedback from the City’s contracted
public health professional and the City of Phoenix overall risk category per the Arizona
Department of Health Services (AZDHS) Community Transmission Indicators.
The Parks and Recreation Department implemented the plan with the opening of 11
large community centers for summer youth camps and registered programs on June 7.
The camps provide activities for youth ages six to 12 and are at 65 percent registration
capacity overall, with open spots available at all centers.
The reopening plan also called for the department to move into the next phase of
reopening when the AZDHS Community Transmission reached the Moderate
Transmission category. On June 10, the overall risk category reached the Moderate
Transmission category. Therefore, effective June 21, the 11 open community centers
increased program capacity to 75 percent; fitness rooms opened at 50 percent
capacity; and other gym activities became available by reservation.
Further, effective June 28, 2021, Tier 2 small centers opened at the same capacity
percentages. Centers that do not offer formal summer recreation programs opened for
drop-in recreation activities for select classes and programs, which will require
registration and/or appointments. All community centers are now open
(Attachment A).
To align with increased capacities at indoor facilities, staff is requesting City Council
approval to increase capacity limits at the pools. At present, open swim and swim
Page 237
lessons are offered at modified capacities. The department is recommending to
increase open swim and swim lessons to 100 percent capacities and remove the
requirement that youth must be accompanied by someone at least 16 years old for
open swim upon approval.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 238
Attachment A
Parks and Recreation Department Community Centers
Tier 1 Centers (14) – Opened June 7
Aeroterra Community Center (1725 E. McKinley St.) *
Deer Valley Community Center (2001 W. Wahalla Ln.)
Desert West Community Center (6501 W. Virginia Ave.)
Eastlake Community Center (1549 E. Jefferson St.)
Goelet A.C Beuf Community Center (3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Rd.)
Longview Neighborhood Recreation Center (4040 N. 14th St.)
Luke Krohn (1940 1/2 E. Villa St.) *
Maryvale Community Center (4420 N. 67th Ave.)
Paradise Valley Community Center (17402 N. 40th St.)
Pecos Community Center (17010 S. 48th St.)
Sidney P. Osborn (1720 E. Adams St.) *
South Mountain Community Center (212 E. Alta Vista Rd.)
Sunnyslope Community Center (802 E. Vogel Ave.)
Washington Activity Center (2240 W. Citrus Way)
Tier 2 Centers (16) – Opened June 28
Bret Tarver Learning Center (1516 N. 35th Ave.)
Coffelt-Lamoreaux Recreation Center (1510 S. 19th Dr.) **
Devonshire Senior Center (2802 E. Devonshire Ave.)
Faye Gray Recreation Center (5550 S. 20th St.)
Harmon Recreation Center (1425 S. 5th Ave.)
Hayden Neighborhood Recreation Center (420 W. Tamarisk Ave.)
Holiday Park Recreation Center (4560 N. 67th Ave.)
Marc Atkinson Recreation Center (4535 N. 23rd Ave.)
Mountain View Community Center (1104 E. Grovers Ave.)
Muriel Smith Recreation Center (2230 W. Roeser Ave.)
Playa Margarita Recreation Center (3615 W. Roeser Ave.)
South Phoenix Youth Center (5245 S. 7th St.)
Sunnyslope Youth Center (1702 W. Peoria Ave.)
University Park Recreation Center (1002 W. Van Buren St.)
Verde Park Recreation Center (916 E. Van Buren St.)
Vernell Coleman Recreation Center (830 W. Tonto St.) *
* denotes Housing Department site
** denotes Maricopa County site
Page 239
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Contract No. 111 - Lease Extension of City-Owned Property at 723
W. Polk Street with the American Legion Post No. 1 (Ordinance S-47830)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend City Contract No.
111, and any other agreements as necessary (Amendment), with the American Legion
Post No. 1, a nonprofit service organization for military veterans (Legion), to extend the
lease term for the Legion's use of City-owned property located at 723 W. Polk Street,
also known as 364 N. 7th Avenue (the Site), accept real property, and modify certain
business terms. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept funds
related to this item. There is no expense impact to the General Fund as a result of this
action. The lease extension will generate $300 in total revenue to the General Fund.
Summary
On Feb. 20, 1920, the City and Legion entered into a 99-year lease of the 1.7 acre Site
for the purpose of creating a location and facility for the Frank Luke Jr. Post No. 1 of
the American Legion. The lease agreement terminated on Feb. 20, 2019, pursuant to
the terms of the contract. On Sept. 5, 2018, the City Council authorized an extension
to the lease which terminated on Aug. 1, 2020, allowing the Legion to celebrate the
100th anniversary of the Legion and Post No. 1 in the building. City staff sent a lease
amendment to the Legion for execution; however, the Legion never signed it but has
continued to occupy the Site. Concurrently, the Community and Economic
Development Department (CEDD) is negotiating the terms of a disposition and
redevelopment agreement for the Site, pursuant to a Request for Proposal (RFP)
authorized by City Council on June 26, 2019. At a future date, CEDD will seek City
Council authorization to enter into a disposition and redevelopment agreement with the
responsive proposer of that RFP.
The Legion notified the City that the American Legion's 102nd National Convention will
be held in Phoenix in August 2021 and the Frank Luke Jr. Post No. 1 will be
showcased as one of the original American Legion posts in the U.S. The proposed
amendment would allow the Legion to remain in the building through the National
Convention.
Subject to City Council authorization, the following business terms have been
negotiated with the Legion and would be implemented through the Amendment.
Page 240
1. Term shall be retroactively extended from Feb. 20, 2019 to up to Aug. 1, 2022.
2. Legion shall provide the City with the following consideration for the lease
extension: a) Pay rent of $100 per year for the extension (including previous rental
payments owed for years 2019-20 and 2020-21, for a total of $300; b) Provide the
equivalent of not less than $6,400 per year of in-kind public benefit services, to be
coordinated with, and monitored by, the CEDD. The Legion shall document the in-
kind public benefit services for years 2019-20 and 2020-21, or pay to the City a
make-up payment of up to $6,400 per year if the Legion does not sufficiently
document the in-kind public benefits; and c) Transfer ownership of APN 111-30-
085C, a small parcel adjacent to the Site, to the City, at no cost to the City.
3. Legion shall be responsible for all public and private utilities and property expenses.
4. Legion shall not renew the lease term of any third party billboard leases on the site.
5. Legion shall provide insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City.
6. Amendment may include other terms and conditions deemed necessary or
appropriate by the City Manager or his designee.
Contract Term
This Amendment will extend the lease term until up to Aug. 1, 2022, unless earlier
terminated by the City.
Financial Impact
There is no expense impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. The
Amendment will create a one-time lease payment of $300 which will be deposited into
the General Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Resolution 524, authorizing this contract, was passed by the Commission of the City of
Phoenix on March 3, 1920. Ordinance S-44976, authorizing the first amendment, was
passed by the City Council on Sept. 5, 2018, but the amendment was never executed.
Location
723 W. Polk Street (also known as 364 N. 7th Ave.)
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 241
Report
W. Polk Street with the American Legion Post No. 1 (Ordinance S-47830)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend City Contract No.
111, and any other agreements as necessary (Amendment), with the American Legion
Post No. 1, a nonprofit service organization for military veterans (Legion), to extend the
lease term for the Legion's use of City-owned property located at 723 W. Polk Street,
also known as 364 N. 7th Avenue (the Site), accept real property, and modify certain
business terms. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept funds
related to this item. There is no expense impact to the General Fund as a result of this
action. The lease extension will generate $300 in total revenue to the General Fund.
Summary
On Feb. 20, 1920, the City and Legion entered into a 99-year lease of the 1.7 acre Site
for the purpose of creating a location and facility for the Frank Luke Jr. Post No. 1 of
the American Legion. The lease agreement terminated on Feb. 20, 2019, pursuant to
the terms of the contract. On Sept. 5, 2018, the City Council authorized an extension
to the lease which terminated on Aug. 1, 2020, allowing the Legion to celebrate the
100th anniversary of the Legion and Post No. 1 in the building. City staff sent a lease
amendment to the Legion for execution; however, the Legion never signed it but has
continued to occupy the Site. Concurrently, the Community and Economic
Development Department (CEDD) is negotiating the terms of a disposition and
redevelopment agreement for the Site, pursuant to a Request for Proposal (RFP)
authorized by City Council on June 26, 2019. At a future date, CEDD will seek City
Council authorization to enter into a disposition and redevelopment agreement with the
responsive proposer of that RFP.
The Legion notified the City that the American Legion's 102nd National Convention will
be held in Phoenix in August 2021 and the Frank Luke Jr. Post No. 1 will be
showcased as one of the original American Legion posts in the U.S. The proposed
amendment would allow the Legion to remain in the building through the National
Convention.
Subject to City Council authorization, the following business terms have been
negotiated with the Legion and would be implemented through the Amendment.
Page 240
1. Term shall be retroactively extended from Feb. 20, 2019 to up to Aug. 1, 2022.
2. Legion shall provide the City with the following consideration for the lease
extension: a) Pay rent of $100 per year for the extension (including previous rental
payments owed for years 2019-20 and 2020-21, for a total of $300; b) Provide the
equivalent of not less than $6,400 per year of in-kind public benefit services, to be
coordinated with, and monitored by, the CEDD. The Legion shall document the in-
kind public benefit services for years 2019-20 and 2020-21, or pay to the City a
make-up payment of up to $6,400 per year if the Legion does not sufficiently
document the in-kind public benefits; and c) Transfer ownership of APN 111-30-
085C, a small parcel adjacent to the Site, to the City, at no cost to the City.
3. Legion shall be responsible for all public and private utilities and property expenses.
4. Legion shall not renew the lease term of any third party billboard leases on the site.
5. Legion shall provide insurance and indemnification acceptable to the City.
6. Amendment may include other terms and conditions deemed necessary or
appropriate by the City Manager or his designee.
Contract Term
This Amendment will extend the lease term until up to Aug. 1, 2022, unless earlier
terminated by the City.
Financial Impact
There is no expense impact to the General Fund as a result of this action. The
Amendment will create a one-time lease payment of $300 which will be deposited into
the General Fund.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Resolution 524, authorizing this contract, was passed by the Commission of the City of
Phoenix on March 3, 1920. Ordinance S-44976, authorizing the first amendment, was
passed by the City Council on Sept. 5, 2018, but the amendment was never executed.
Location
723 W. Polk Street (also known as 364 N. 7th Ave.)
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.
Page 241
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Electronic Interference Detection Equipment - IFB 21-130 (Ordinance S-47801)
Request the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract for a one-time
purchase from Research Electronics International LLC, for electronic interference
detection equipment for the Police Department. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate value will not
exceed $103,500.
Summary
The electronic interference detection equipment will provide the Police Department's
Threat Mitigation Unit with an advanced capability to identify wireless interference,
locate the source of the interference, and mitigate the interference in a timely manner
to minimize the impact to Public Safety communications and at critical infrastructure
sites. Wireless interference includes illegal jammers, and improperly configured or
malfunctioning radios which emit radio frequency (RF) signals that can affect Public
Safety communications. In the past 18 months, there have been multiple instances
where Police and Fire Department Communications have been impacted negatively by
both unintentional and nefarious incidents of wireless interference. This equipment is
designed to be used as a handheld tool to identify the exact source of the RF
interference, and prevent interference sources.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
IFB 21-130 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
was one offer received by the Procurement Division on June 9, 2021. The offer
submitted by Research Electronics International, LLC, was evaluated on price,
responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the required goods and
services. The price was determined to be fair and reasonable based on market
research. The bid notification was sent to 99 suppliers and was publicly posted and
available for download from the City's website.
Contract Term
The one-year contract term will begin on or about July 7, 2021.
Page 242
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $103,500. Funds are available in the
Police Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 243
Report
Request the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract for a one-time
purchase from Research Electronics International LLC, for electronic interference
detection equipment for the Police Department. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate value will not
exceed $103,500.
Summary
The electronic interference detection equipment will provide the Police Department's
Threat Mitigation Unit with an advanced capability to identify wireless interference,
locate the source of the interference, and mitigate the interference in a timely manner
to minimize the impact to Public Safety communications and at critical infrastructure
sites. Wireless interference includes illegal jammers, and improperly configured or
malfunctioning radios which emit radio frequency (RF) signals that can affect Public
Safety communications. In the past 18 months, there have been multiple instances
where Police and Fire Department Communications have been impacted negatively by
both unintentional and nefarious incidents of wireless interference. This equipment is
designed to be used as a handheld tool to identify the exact source of the RF
interference, and prevent interference sources.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
IFB 21-130 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
was one offer received by the Procurement Division on June 9, 2021. The offer
submitted by Research Electronics International, LLC, was evaluated on price,
responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the required goods and
services. The price was determined to be fair and reasonable based on market
research. The bid notification was sent to 99 suppliers and was publicly posted and
available for download from the City's website.
Contract Term
The one-year contract term will begin on or about July 7, 2021.
Page 242
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $103,500. Funds are available in the
Police Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 243
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus - Requirements Contract - RFP 21-049
(Ordinance S-47804)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Municipal Emergency Services (MES) Inc. to purchase Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA), parts and related services for Phoenix Fire Department (PFD).
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $26,000,000.
Summary
This contract will provide SCBA for PFD, to include annual inspection, fit-testing,
hydrostatic testing, preventative maintenance, repairs and parts. The SCBA is used by
firefighters in any immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) atmosphere, such as
structure, car, dumpster fires, over haul, hazardous incidents, confined space rescues
and the investigation of fire scenes. The use of SCBAs is mandated by National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 1982 Standard and National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) regulations. The PFD labor management process
determined to continue with the Scott brand of SCBAs and upgrade to the Scott X3
Pro and Scott SKA-PAK respirator which meets the current NFPA standards. The PFD
currently uses Scott SCBAs, face pieces, regulators, cylinders, and all associated
parts which are compatible with the Scott X3 Pro and Scott SKA-PAK respirators,
resulting in a cost savings of approximately $3 million for the City.
Procurement Information
RFP 21-049 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were two offers received by the Procurement Division on May 21, 2021. The
notification was sent to 107 suppliers and was publicly posted and available for
download from the City's website.
The proposals were scored by a three-member evaluation panel based on the
following evaluation criteria worth 1,000 points:
Conformance with Scope of Work / Project Approach / Warranty, Maintenance &
Repair Services - 400 points
Firm Experience and Personnel Qualifications - 300 points
Page 244
Cost (Section VI - Price Schedule) - 200 points
Training Schedule and References - 100 points
The offeror scores are as follows:
Municipal Emergency Services (MES) - 980 points
Safeware - 700 points
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from Municipal Emergency
Services be accepted as the highest-scored, responsive and responsible offer that is
most advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2021. Provisions of the
contract will include an option to extend the term of the contract for one additional five-
year period, which may be exercised by the City Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value including the optional years will not exceed $26,000,000.
In addition, MES is offering a trade in credit for SCBAs in the amount of $990,000.
Funds are available in the Fire Department's budget. The critical nature of the SCBA
units require that they be maintained and replaced at regularly scheduled intervals. To
accomplish this goal staff recommends creating an SCBA Replacement Fund. This
fund will be funded with a General Fund transfer of approximately $1 million-per-year
starting in FY 2022-23. From this point forward the replacement fund would have the
resources required to ensure that this critical equipment is replaced in accordance with
national standards and in advance of being declared obsolete.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The replacement of SCBA for PFD was approved by a 4-0 vote at the Public Safety
and Justice Subcommittee meeting held on March 10, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and Fire Department.
Page 245
Report
(Ordinance S-47804)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Municipal Emergency Services (MES) Inc. to purchase Self-Contained Breathing
Apparatus (SCBA), parts and related services for Phoenix Fire Department (PFD).
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $26,000,000.
Summary
This contract will provide SCBA for PFD, to include annual inspection, fit-testing,
hydrostatic testing, preventative maintenance, repairs and parts. The SCBA is used by
firefighters in any immediately dangerous to life or health (IDLH) atmosphere, such as
structure, car, dumpster fires, over haul, hazardous incidents, confined space rescues
and the investigation of fire scenes. The use of SCBAs is mandated by National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) 1982 Standard and National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) regulations. The PFD labor management process
determined to continue with the Scott brand of SCBAs and upgrade to the Scott X3
Pro and Scott SKA-PAK respirator which meets the current NFPA standards. The PFD
currently uses Scott SCBAs, face pieces, regulators, cylinders, and all associated
parts which are compatible with the Scott X3 Pro and Scott SKA-PAK respirators,
resulting in a cost savings of approximately $3 million for the City.
Procurement Information
RFP 21-049 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were two offers received by the Procurement Division on May 21, 2021. The
notification was sent to 107 suppliers and was publicly posted and available for
download from the City's website.
The proposals were scored by a three-member evaluation panel based on the
following evaluation criteria worth 1,000 points:
Conformance with Scope of Work / Project Approach / Warranty, Maintenance &
Repair Services - 400 points
Firm Experience and Personnel Qualifications - 300 points
Page 244
Cost (Section VI - Price Schedule) - 200 points
Training Schedule and References - 100 points
The offeror scores are as follows:
Municipal Emergency Services (MES) - 980 points
Safeware - 700 points
The Deputy Finance Director recommends that the offer from Municipal Emergency
Services be accepted as the highest-scored, responsive and responsible offer that is
most advantageous to the City.
Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about July 1, 2021. Provisions of the
contract will include an option to extend the term of the contract for one additional five-
year period, which may be exercised by the City Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value including the optional years will not exceed $26,000,000.
In addition, MES is offering a trade in credit for SCBAs in the amount of $990,000.
Funds are available in the Fire Department's budget. The critical nature of the SCBA
units require that they be maintained and replaced at regularly scheduled intervals. To
accomplish this goal staff recommends creating an SCBA Replacement Fund. This
fund will be funded with a General Fund transfer of approximately $1 million-per-year
starting in FY 2022-23. From this point forward the replacement fund would have the
resources required to ensure that this critical equipment is replaced in accordance with
national standards and in advance of being declared obsolete.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The replacement of SCBA for PFD was approved by a 4-0 vote at the Public Safety
and Justice Subcommittee meeting held on March 10, 2021.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and Fire Department.
Page 245
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Intergovernmental Agreement with Town of Paradise Valley for Fire Protection
and Emergency Medical Services (Ordinance S-47825)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Paradise Valley for fire protection and
emergency medical services. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. The Fire
Department will receive an amount of $2,819,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for fire and
emergency medical services.
Summary
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Phoenix will provide staffing for the Town
of Paradise Valley fire stations and emergency response to the community; personnel
and certain operating costs to be split 50/50 between Phoenix and Paradise Valley.
Calls will be dispatched through the Phoenix Fire Department's Regional Dispatch
Center. Paradise Valley and Phoenix will alternate the purchase of replacement
apparatus based on the replacement schedule, with the mileage of each apparatus to
be the determining factor on future replacement.
The proposed agreement is of mutual benefit to the residents of both the City of
Phoenix and the Town of Paradise Valley. Both Paradise Valley fire station locations
will reduce response times into portions of Phoenix that border Paradise Valley.
Contract Term
The 20-year contract term will begin July 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive an amount of $2,819,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for
fire and emergency medical services.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.
Page 246
Report
and Emergency Medical Services (Ordinance S-47825)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an
intergovernmental agreement with the Town of Paradise Valley for fire protection and
emergency medical services. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. The Fire
Department will receive an amount of $2,819,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for fire and
emergency medical services.
Summary
Under the terms of the proposed agreement, Phoenix will provide staffing for the Town
of Paradise Valley fire stations and emergency response to the community; personnel
and certain operating costs to be split 50/50 between Phoenix and Paradise Valley.
Calls will be dispatched through the Phoenix Fire Department's Regional Dispatch
Center. Paradise Valley and Phoenix will alternate the purchase of replacement
apparatus based on the replacement schedule, with the mileage of each apparatus to
be the determining factor on future replacement.
The proposed agreement is of mutual benefit to the residents of both the City of
Phoenix and the Town of Paradise Valley. Both Paradise Valley fire station locations
will reduce response times into portions of Phoenix that border Paradise Valley.
Contract Term
The 20-year contract term will begin July 1, 2021.
Financial Impact
The Fire Department will receive an amount of $2,819,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 for
fire and emergency medical services.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Fire Department.
Page 246
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Shoplifting/Theft Diversion Program
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
SAGE Counseling, Inc. (SAGE) to operate and administer the City’s Shoplifting/Theft
Diversion Program (SDP). The Program is funded entirely through fees paid by
program participants.
Summary
This program provides a one-day educational program (or individual counseling, as
needed) for persons charged with a shoplifting or theft-related misdemeanor offense in
the City of Phoenix who meet the Prosecutor’s Office criteria to participate in this
diversion program. There is a wide range of criteria, including for example, participants
are usually first-time offenders, have no previous theft-related felony, have no history
of violations in fiduciary positions, and the incident was non-violent.
Procurement Information
In April 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposals, RFP 21-LAW-002, to seek
offers from outside organizations to operate the City’s Shoplifting/Theft Diversion
Program. The solicitation notification was emailed to 113 vendors registered in
ProcurePHX, mailed to 36 vendors, and was posted and available for download from
the City’s website. Two proposals were received, one of which was deemed non-
responsive. The responsive proposal was reviewed by an evaluation panel that
determined that the SAGE proposal satisfies the requirements in the RFP.
Contract Term
The contract term will be three years beginning on or about July 1, 2021 through June
30, 2024, with two, one-year options for renewal, which may be exercised by the City
Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
There is no annual expenditure of City funds because the program is fully funded by
fees paid by program participants.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department, City
Prosecutor’s Office.
Page 247
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
SAGE Counseling, Inc. (SAGE) to operate and administer the City’s Shoplifting/Theft
Diversion Program (SDP). The Program is funded entirely through fees paid by
program participants.
Summary
This program provides a one-day educational program (or individual counseling, as
needed) for persons charged with a shoplifting or theft-related misdemeanor offense in
the City of Phoenix who meet the Prosecutor’s Office criteria to participate in this
diversion program. There is a wide range of criteria, including for example, participants
are usually first-time offenders, have no previous theft-related felony, have no history
of violations in fiduciary positions, and the incident was non-violent.
Procurement Information
In April 2021, the City issued a Request for Proposals, RFP 21-LAW-002, to seek
offers from outside organizations to operate the City’s Shoplifting/Theft Diversion
Program. The solicitation notification was emailed to 113 vendors registered in
ProcurePHX, mailed to 36 vendors, and was posted and available for download from
the City’s website. Two proposals were received, one of which was deemed non-
responsive. The responsive proposal was reviewed by an evaluation panel that
determined that the SAGE proposal satisfies the requirements in the RFP.
Contract Term
The contract term will be three years beginning on or about July 1, 2021 through June
30, 2024, with two, one-year options for renewal, which may be exercised by the City
Manager or his designee.
Financial Impact
There is no annual expenditure of City funds because the program is fully funded by
fees paid by program participants.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Ed Zuercher and the Law Department, City
Prosecutor’s Office.
Page 247
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Apply For Local Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund Grant Funding to
Purchase Computer Hardware (Ordinance S-47800)
Request to authorize the Phoenix Municipal Court to apply for grant funding from the
Arizona Supreme Court-administered Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund to
purchase computers and related hardware. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Grant funding would not exceed $160,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Municipal Court will use the funds to replace aging desktop computers,
laptops, and related hardware, as well as to replenish its stock of spare computers and
related hardware. The purchase of additional hardware, and replacement of existing
hardware, will help the Court support expanded business needs, ensure the reliability
of the Court's business systems, minimize potential hardware failure and support
requirements and maintenance costs.
Financial Impact
Funds will be made available in the Phoenix Municipal Court local Judicial Collection
Enhancement Fund account. The Phoenix Municipal Court must submit a funding plan
and application to the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts to
secure approval for use of Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund funds pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-113. No General Fund dollars will be used and
the City could receive up to $160,000 in grant funding.
Responsible Department
This item is recommended by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III and Deputy City
Manager Karen Peters.
Page 248
Report
Purchase Computer Hardware (Ordinance S-47800)
Request to authorize the Phoenix Municipal Court to apply for grant funding from the
Arizona Supreme Court-administered Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund to
purchase computers and related hardware. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Grant funding would not exceed $160,000.
Summary
The Phoenix Municipal Court will use the funds to replace aging desktop computers,
laptops, and related hardware, as well as to replenish its stock of spare computers and
related hardware. The purchase of additional hardware, and replacement of existing
hardware, will help the Court support expanded business needs, ensure the reliability
of the Court's business systems, minimize potential hardware failure and support
requirements and maintenance costs.
Financial Impact
Funds will be made available in the Phoenix Municipal Court local Judicial Collection
Enhancement Fund account. The Phoenix Municipal Court must submit a funding plan
and application to the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts to
secure approval for use of Judicial Collection Enhancement Fund funds pursuant to
Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-113. No General Fund dollars will be used and
the City could receive up to $160,000 in grant funding.
Responsible Department
This item is recommended by Chief Presiding Judge B. Don Taylor III and Deputy City
Manager Karen Peters.
Page 248
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
FY 2021 Community Policing Development De-Escalation Grant (Ordinance S-
47823)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY 2021
Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Grant in an amount not to
exceed $200,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The De-Escalation Training Grant provides funding to develop the capacity of law
enforcement to implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on
promising practices through the development and testing of innovative strategies;
building knowledge about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new,
creative approaches to preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding to law enforcement agencies seeking to build
agencies' internal capacity to provide de-escalation training to officers, including
overtime and investments in Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality (VR/AR) technology.
Funding may also support the development of resources (roll-call videos, toolkits, etc.)
to support agencies' de-escalation training efforts and to promote continual learning
and maintenance of skills. Applications are due by July 22, 2021.
Contract Term
Two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $200,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 249
Report
47823)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY 2021
Community Policing Development De-Escalation Training Grant in an amount not to
exceed $200,000. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The De-Escalation Training Grant provides funding to develop the capacity of law
enforcement to implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on
promising practices through the development and testing of innovative strategies;
building knowledge about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new,
creative approaches to preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding to law enforcement agencies seeking to build
agencies' internal capacity to provide de-escalation training to officers, including
overtime and investments in Virtual Reality/Augmented Reality (VR/AR) technology.
Funding may also support the development of resources (roll-call videos, toolkits, etc.)
to support agencies' de-escalation training efforts and to promote continual learning
and maintenance of skills. Applications are due by July 22, 2021.
Contract Term
Two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $200,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 249
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
FY2021 Community Policing Development Accreditation Grant (Ordinance S-
47824)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S.Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY2021
Accreditation Grant in an amount not to exceed $75,000. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item.
Summary
The Accreditation Grant provides funding to develop capacity of law enforcement to
implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on promising practices
through the development and testing of innovative strategies; building knowledge
about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new, creative approaches to
preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding related to obtaining accreditation from an existing
law enforcement accreditation entity. This grant will fund sworn officer salaries, civilian
employee salaries, sworn officer overtime, contracts for staff, accreditation fees, and
cost associated with internal training for personnel, as well as any other expenses
directly related to an agency's ability to successfully obtain accreditation. Applications
are due by July, 22, 2021.
Contract Term
Two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $75,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 250
Report
47824)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S.Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY2021
Accreditation Grant in an amount not to exceed $75,000. Further request authorization
for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item.
Summary
The Accreditation Grant provides funding to develop capacity of law enforcement to
implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on promising practices
through the development and testing of innovative strategies; building knowledge
about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new, creative approaches to
preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding related to obtaining accreditation from an existing
law enforcement accreditation entity. This grant will fund sworn officer salaries, civilian
employee salaries, sworn officer overtime, contracts for staff, accreditation fees, and
cost associated with internal training for personnel, as well as any other expenses
directly related to an agency's ability to successfully obtain accreditation. Applications
are due by July, 22, 2021.
Contract Term
Two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $75,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 250
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
FY2021 Community Police Development Crisis Intervention Teams Grant
(Ordinance S-47826)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY2021
Crisis Intervention Teams Grant in the amount not to exceed $250,000. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Crisis Intervention Teams Grant will provide funding to develop capacity of law
enforcement to implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on
promising practices through the development and testing of innovative strategies;
building knowledge about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new,
creative approaches to preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding to law enforcement agencies to create or expand
the use of crisis intervention teams to embed mental and behavioral health services
with law enforcement to better respond to individuals in crisis within the community.
The grant will fund overtime for sworn personnel, salaries and contracts for mental
health professionals and cost associated with training for personnel. Applications are
due by July 7, 2021.
Contract Term
The contract term is two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $250,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 251
Report
(Ordinance S-47826)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the U.S. Department
of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), for the FY2021
Crisis Intervention Teams Grant in the amount not to exceed $250,000. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Crisis Intervention Teams Grant will provide funding to develop capacity of law
enforcement to implement community policing strategies by providing guidance on
promising practices through the development and testing of innovative strategies;
building knowledge about effective practices and outcomes; and supporting new,
creative approaches to preventing crime and promoting safe communities.
The COPS office will provide funding to law enforcement agencies to create or expand
the use of crisis intervention teams to embed mental and behavioral health services
with law enforcement to better respond to individuals in crisis within the community.
The grant will fund overtime for sworn personnel, salaries and contracts for mental
health professionals and cost associated with training for personnel. Applications are
due by July 7, 2021.
Contract Term
The contract term is two years beginning Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
The total funding request is $250,000. No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 251
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend Ordinance for Memorandum of Understanding and Cost Reimbursable
Agreement with Federal Bureau of Investigation (Ordinance S-47828)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the current
ordinance (S-41079) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the reimbursement of
police services provided to the Violent Street Gang Task Force. Authorization of the
amendment will increase the amount of reimbursement to $120,000 per year. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department has entered into similar reimbursement agreements with the
FBI over the last several years. This agreement reimburses the City for the cost of
police overtime and related fringe benefits when the officers work with the FBI on
investigations involving certain criminal enterprise groups operating in the Phoenix
area. The purpose of these investigations is to identify and target for prosecution
criminal enterprise groups responsible for drug trafficking, money laundering, human
smuggling, crimes of violence such as murder and aggravated assault, robbery and
violent street gangs, as well as to intensely focus on the apprehension of dangerous
fugitives where there is or may be a federal investigative interest.
Ordinance S-41079 authorized an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
not to exceed $45,000. The amendment will increase the amount of funding by
$75,000, not to exceed a total of $120,000 per year. All other items will remain
unchanged.
Contract Term
The contract term is from Aug. 7, 2014 until cancelled by either party.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required. The cost to the City is in-kind resources only.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-41079 was adopted by City Council at the July 2, 2014 meeting.
Page 252
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 253
Report
Agreement with Federal Bureau of Investigation (Ordinance S-47828)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the current
ordinance (S-41079) with the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the reimbursement of
police services provided to the Violent Street Gang Task Force. Authorization of the
amendment will increase the amount of reimbursement to $120,000 per year. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.
Summary
The Police Department has entered into similar reimbursement agreements with the
FBI over the last several years. This agreement reimburses the City for the cost of
police overtime and related fringe benefits when the officers work with the FBI on
investigations involving certain criminal enterprise groups operating in the Phoenix
area. The purpose of these investigations is to identify and target for prosecution
criminal enterprise groups responsible for drug trafficking, money laundering, human
smuggling, crimes of violence such as murder and aggravated assault, robbery and
violent street gangs, as well as to intensely focus on the apprehension of dangerous
fugitives where there is or may be a federal investigative interest.
Ordinance S-41079 authorized an agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation
not to exceed $45,000. The amendment will increase the amount of funding by
$75,000, not to exceed a total of $120,000 per year. All other items will remain
unchanged.
Contract Term
The contract term is from Aug. 7, 2014 until cancelled by either party.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required. The cost to the City is in-kind resources only.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Ordinance S-41079 was adopted by City Council at the July 2, 2014 meeting.
Page 252
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department.
Page 253
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request Ordinance Amendment for Neighborhood Block Watch Oversight
Committee's Recommendations for 2021 Grant Program Awards (Ordinance S-
47829)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend ordinance (S-
47766) for the Neighborhood Block Watch (NBW) Oversight Committee's
recommendations for the 2021 grant program awards. Authorization of the amendment
will increase the number of agreements from 133 to 153 between the City of Phoenix
and the Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program applicants for the 2021 grant cycle,
and increase the annual funding amount available for all grant applications from
$1,509,747 to $1,700,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse funds related to this item in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000.
Summary
Ordinance S-47766 was approved as amended, by City Council on June 23 2021. At
that meeting, City Council members requested that all grant applications receiving a
score of 3.75 or greater be recommended for funding. This amendment will increase
the number of agreements from 133 to 153.
See Attachment A and Revised Attachment A for a list of all 160 grant applications.
Contract Term
The funding period is July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department on behalf of the Neighborhood Block Watch Oversight Committee.
Page 254
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-001 Hunter's Village/Tapestry 24 Hr Surveillance 3 Neighborhood Crime Prevention and Involvement $8,480.00 $8,480.00 7.2222
21-002 Weston Park Block Watch - Weston Park/Grayson Square 8 Maintaining Control/Keeping an Eye on our Neighborhood. $4,904.00 $4,904.00 5.3444
21-003 Riverwalk Villages Block Watch 7 Block Watch and Safety Group 2021 $11,655.00 $11,655.00 6.1222
21-005 Laurelwood Homes Block Watch 5 Villa de Paz Crime Prevention Program $11,999.00 $11,999.00 6.6222
21-006 Sierra Colina Block Watch / M.C. Cash School 7 M.C. Cash Wake Up! $10,283.00 $10,283.00 6.3444
21-007 Target Area "B" / Sabis International School 8 Sabis Wake Up! $9,386.00 $9,386.00 5.9333
SUNBURST FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION / Desert
21-008 1 Desert Foothills Wake Up! $10,073.00 $10,073.00 6.2111
Foothills Junior High School
21-009 Redhawk At Rogers Ranch Block Watch / Rogers Ranch School 7 Rogers Ranch Wake Up! Club $11,833.00 $11,833.00 6.2333
21-010 Trailside Point Block Watch / Trailside Point School 7 Trailside Point Wake Up Club $9,273.00 $9,273.00 6.1556
21-011 Riverwalk Villages Block Watch / Cheatham Elementary School 7 Cheatham Wake Up! Club $8,973.00 $8,973.00 6.0778
21-013 Arlington Estates II Neighborhood Association 7 Light it Up and Lock it Down! $11,958.00 $11,958.00 6.0667
Page 255
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
Moon Valley Neighborhood Association / Mountain Sky Junior High
21-014 3 Mountain Sky Wake Up! $9,123.00 $9,123.00 6.0778
School
21-015 Palomino Neighborhood Association / Palomino Intermediate School 2 Palomino Wake Up! Club $9,123.00 $9,123.00 6.1556
21-016 Desert Horizon Precinct Block Watch and PNP 3 Desert Horizon Crime Prevention, Safety, and Outreach $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.0111
21-017 Mountain View Precinct Phoenix - Neighborhood Patrol 4 Mtn View Safe & Engaged $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.4000
21-018 Phoenix Block Watch Advisory Board 3 crime prevention plus $11,850.00 $11,850.00 7.2750
Phoenix Block Watch Advisory Board / Community Engagement
21-019 3 crime prevention plus - 1 $11,645.00 $11,645.00 7.0125
Bureau
21-020 Moon Valley Gardens Neighborhood Block Watch 3 2021 Safer Neighborhood $11,731.00 $11,731.00 7.0889
Moon Valley Gardens Neighborhood Block Watch / Washington
21-021 3 2021 Engaging Youth with Community Involvement $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1222
Elementary School District and Glendale Union High School District
21-022 Sierra Colina Block Watch / Sierra Colina HOA 8 Solutions Style Living During C-19 Pandemic $10,546.00 $10,546.00 5.3667
2021 Grant Application Tatum and Shea Action Area
21-023 Tatum & Shea Action Area Master Block Watch 3 $4,163.00 $4,163.00 6.8667
Master Block Watch
21-025 Black Mountain Community Alliance 1 2021 BMCA Crime Prevention & Safety Projects $11,960.00 $11,960.00 7.5111
Page 256
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-026 Deer Valley Park Neighborhood Block Watch Organization 1 2021 DVPNBWO Crime Prevention & Safety Project $11,475.00 $11,475.00 7.3111
21-027 ROYAL PALM BLOCK WATCH / Royal Palm Middle School 3 Royal Palm Wake Up! Club $9,443.00 $9,443.00 6.3333
21-028 East Glenrosa Avenue 6 East Glenrosa Block Watch $11,170.00 $11,170.00 6.6000
21-029 South Mountain Block Watch / Southwest School 8 Southwest Wake Up! Club $8,366.00 $8,366.00 6.1667
West Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association and Block Watch /
21-030 3 Mountain View Wake Up! Club $9,913.00 $9,913.00 6.1333
Mountain View School
21-031 Target Area "B" / Percy L. Julian School 8 Julian Wake Up! $8,263.00 $8,263.00 5.9111
21-032 South Mountain Village Clean and Beautiful / Jack L. Kuban School 6 Kuban Wake Up! $8,737.00 $8,737.00 5.9556
21-033 Saint John Alliance / Vista Verde Middle School 2 Vista Verde Wake Up! $9,487.00 $9,487.00 6.1333
21-034 Moon Valley 1 Block Watch 3 Moon Valley Pride $6,015.00 $6,015.00 6.5778
Citywide Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol and Education
21-035 Moon Valley Block Watch / Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol (#1895) 3 $11,880.00 $11,880.00 8.4222
program 2021-2022
Black Mountain Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol / Moon Valley 1 Black Mountain Precinct Block Watch & Phoenix
21-036 3 $11,610.00 $11,610.00 7.1222
Block Watch Neighborhood Patrol
Page 257
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
South Mountain Village Clean and Beautiful / Arthur M. Hamilton
21-037 6 Hamilton Wake Up! $8,858.00 $8,858.00 6.2556
School
21-038 Estrella Super Mom's Block Watch / Estrella Middle School 8 Estrella Wake Up! $10,366.00 $10,366.00 5.7444
21-039 Sienna Vista / Santa Maria MIddle School 7 Santa Maria Wake Up! $8,898.00 $8,898.00 6.2111
2021-2022 LLNA Blockwatch Grant-Neighborhood Safety &
21-040 Loma Linda Neighborhood Association 4 $11,787.00 $11,787.00 5.4222
Communication
21-041 Grandview Neighborhood Association 4 Grandview Block Watch Crime Prevention & Reduction $11,915.00 $11,915.00 6.8556
21-042 Royal Palm Neighborhood Council 3 Royal Palm Neighborhood $11,915.00 $11,915.00 5.6667
21-043 Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association 6 Block Watch Grant 2021 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.7333
21-044 West Plaza Neighborhood Association 5 Blight & Crime Suppression Thru Community Action $9,995.00 $9,995.00 6.5222
21-045 Greater Green Gables Neighborhood Association 8 Green Gables Crime Reduction Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.9667
21-047 Mountain Estates Block Watch 3 Mountain Estates/Paradise Gardens 2021-22 $11,859.00 $11,859.00 6.1556
21-049 Moon Valley Neighborhood Association 3 Moon Valley Community Awareness $10,065.00 $10,065.00 7.0333
Page 258
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-051 Grant Park Community Garden 8 Grant Park Barrio Safety Now - Year Two $10,236.00 $10,236.00 5.4889
21-052 North Glen Square Neighborhood Association 5 North Glen Square Neighborhood Crime Prevention $8,345.00 $8,345.00 5.6111
21-053 Tomahawk Village Block Watch / Desert Sands Middle School 5 Desert Sands Wake Up! $8,773.00 $8,773.00 6.2333
21-054 Homestead Block Watch / Charles W Harris School 7 Harris Wake Up! $11,023.00 $11,023.00 6.1222
21-055 ARCADIA OSBORN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1 Block Watch Grant $11,995.00 $11,995.00 6.2778
21-056 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch 1 2021/2022 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1000
21-058 Wilson Coalition / Wilson School 8 Wilson Wake Up! $9,557.00 $9,557.00 6.1778
Preventative Measures in Crime Prevention Through
21-060 Seven Palms Block Watch 3 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.0333
Education
21-061 Central Park Village / Central Park Village Activity Board 3 2021 CPVBW Newsletter $7,712.00 $7,712.00 6.2000
21-062 Marcos de Niza Tenant Council and Community Block Watch 8 Marcos United Community Engagement $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.8444
Moon Valley Block Watch / Phoenix Crime Free-Multi-Housing
21-063 3 Crime Free Multi-Housing Education Project 2021-2022 $11,400.00 $11,400.00 7.3444
Program
Page 259
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-064 Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association 8 2021 NBWGP $1,900.00 $1,900.00 5.6111
21-065 Simpson Neighborhood Association / Empower College Prep 5 Empower Wake Up! $9,923.00 $9,923.00 6.0444
21-066 Trailside Point Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention: Staying Connected While Staying Safe $7,250.00 $7,250.00 6.5000
21-067 Belcanto Block Watch / Belcanto HOA 2 Belcanto Grant 2021 $11,525.00 $11,525.00 5.6889
21-070 WILLOW CREEK VILLAGE 1 2021 Eliminate The Intruders $1,982.00 $1,982.00 6.4000
21-075 Desert Cove and Friends Block Watch 3 Desert Cove and Friends BW Application 2021 $11,895.00 $11,895.00 6.3250
Laveen Ranch Block Watch for Crossroads/Gateway / Laveen Ranch
21-077 7 We Care, We Watch, We Call! $11,960.00 $11,960.00 7.0889
HOA
To Detect, Deter and Delay Crime in the John Jacobs
21-078 John Jacobs Block Watch 3 $11,496.00 $11,496.00 6.9556
Elementary School Neighborhood
21-079 Wilson Coalition / Wilson School District 8 Wilson Community Involvement Project $11,986.00 $11,986.00 5.3333
Laveen Ranch Block Watch for Crossroads/Gateway / Desert
21-080 7 Desert Meadows Wake Up! $9,743.00 $9,743.00 6.2222
Meadows School
Safe Schools "Focus On Excellence" / Safe Schools Youth Programs,
21-081 8 Safe Schools CityWide Diversion Project $11,000.00 $11,000.00 6.1667
LLC
Page 260
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
NORTH CENTRAL PHOENIX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
21-082 6 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program $11,995.00 $11,995.00 5.5667
(NCPHA)
21-083 Orangewood Village Block Watch 1 Orangewood Home, Safety information distribution system $7,550.00 $7,550.00 6.0889
21-085 Mountain Estates Block Watch / Shea Middle School 3 Shea Wake Up! $9,373.00 $9,373.00 6.0222
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S.&B - Save Our Sister and Brothers - Safety
21-087 7 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1333
Missionary Baptist Church Education Awareness and Mentorship Program
21-090 Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP 3 Safety and Security for Community $7,205.00 $7,205.00 6.4000
21-091 Tomahawk Village Block Watch / City of Phx. After School Center 5 Rally, Resolute and Resilient $9,221.00 $9,221.00 6.6222
21-092 Sunnyslope Historical Society and Museum 3 2021-2022 Season $10,520.00 $10,520.00 5.8111
Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance / Maryvale Estrella 2021 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Phoenix Neighborhood
21-093 5 $11,985.00 $11,985.00 6.8750
Mountain Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol Patrol
2021 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance
21-094 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance 5 $11,996.00 $11,996.00 6.6875
Community Engagement
Crime Prevention Through Community Education and
21-095 Cactus Park Community Alliance 1 $11,825.00 $11,825.00 7.2556
Support
21-096 P.R.I.D.E., Inc. 4 P.R.I.D.E. neighborhood $5,124.00 $5,124.00 6.5556
Page 261
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-097 Anthem Neighborhood Watch-West 1 ANW 2021 $11,200.00 $11,200.00 6.6667
Patrol area to deter crime and create a safer environment
21-098 Ridge Runners 2 1 $3,413.00 $3,413.00 7.5000
for our residents.
21-099 Bougainvillea Block Watch 8 Bougainvillea Block Watch $6,920.00 $6,920.00 6.0222
21-100 St. Gregory Neighborhood Assoc 4 St Gregory Neighborhood Grant 2021 $11,800.00 $11,800.00 7.1556
21-101 Metro Block Watch 1 Resident Safety & Education Phase 2 $10,795.00 $10,795.00 6.8444
21-103 Washington Park Neighborhood Association 5 Neighborhood Safety and Pride $10,186.00 $10,186.00 7.3444
21-104 Encanto-Palmcroft Historic Preservation Association 4 Alley Saftety Lighting $3,000.00 $3,000.00 5.5667
Washington Park Neighborhood Association / Maryland Elementary
21-105 7 Washington Park Crime Prevention Program $10,000.00 $10,000.00 6.1778
School
2021/2022 Partnership between the Cactus Wren Block
21-106 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch / Cactus Park Police Precinct 1 $10,770.00 $10,770.00 6.3556
Watch and the Cactus Park Police Precinct
21-108 North Encanto Neighborhood Alliance 4 Sustaining Safety During Challenging Times $8,426.00 $8,426.00 5.5000
21-109 Hatcher Road Business Alliance 3 theHUB Expanded Safety | Security & Engagement $11,974.00 $11,974.00 6.6889
Page 262
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-110 PHX LUV 3 PHX LUV 2021 Block Watch Engagement Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.5000
21-112 Lindo Park Neighborhood Association/Block Watch 8 Crime Prevention and Neighborhood Involvement $5,647.00 $5,647.00 6.3750
21-113 Westwood Community Association 4 Westwood meeting the Challenges of Crime and Blight $11,832.00 $11,832.00 5.7889
21-115 Redhawk At Rogers Ranch Block Watch 7 2021 Redhawk at Rogers Ranch Block Watch $11,830.00 $11,830.00 6.4778
21-116 Sunnyslope Village Alliance 3 Sunnyslope Community Revitalization $11,893.00 $11,893.00 5.3222
21-117 Mountain Trails Neighborhood Block Watch / Mountain Trails HOA 8 Mountain Trails Renewal & Rejuvenation $6,190.00 $6,190.00 5.8222
21-118 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association 8 ACTS "Men of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.6111
21-119 Central City Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol 8 Central City Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol - 21-119 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.5556
Cactus Park Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol Support
21-120 Cactus Park Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol 1 $11,980.00 $11,980.00 7.6333
Program
Paseo Pointe Neighborhood Association / Paseo Pointe Elementary
21-121 7 Paseo Pointe Wake Up! $9,073.00 $9,073.00 6.0222
School
21-124 CAPITOL NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION 8 2021 Capitol Area Crime Reduction $5,700.00 $5,700.00 6.0222
Page 263
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-125 Ocotillo Glen 5 Crime Prevention & Community Involvement $11,990.00 $11,990.00 5.7875
21-126 Laveen Crossing Block Watch 8 2021 Laveen Crossing Block Watch $12,000.00 $11,910.00 7.0111
ABLE ( Arizona Black Law Enforcement Employees ) 2021
21-127 Arizona Black Law Enforcement Employees (ABLE) 5 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 5.9556
Criminal Justice Conference1
21-128 Canal North Neighborhood Association 4 Canal North Crime Prevention Task Force 2021 $6,766.00 $6,766.00 6.5222
21-130 Westwood Village & Estates Neighborhood Association 4 2021 Block Watch Grant $9,006.00 $9,006.00 6.1333
Marcos de Niza Tenant Council and Community Block Watch / Phoenix
21-131 8 CCS Community Connection $11,000.00 $11,000.00 5.9444
Revitalization Corporation
21-136 Safe Schools "Focus On Excellence" / C.J. Jorgensen School 7 RSD 'Teen Court' Project $11,000.00 $11,000.00 6.4556
21-137 Norton Vista Neighborhood Association 3 2021 Back on Track $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.3000
21-139 Vecinos Unidos Siempre / Granada Est School 4 Crime Prevention: Investing in kids 2021 $9,330.00 $9,330.00 6.3889
21-141 Midtown Neighborhood Association 4 Keeping Community Connections Alive $10,742.00 $10,742.00 6.1000
21-142 Woodlea/Melrose Neighborhood Association 4 Woodlea/Melrose Neighborhood Association $10,270.00 $10,270.00 6.7333
Page 264
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-143 Carnation Association of Neighbors 4 Carnation 2021 NBW Program $9,146.00 $9,146.00 6.2222
21-145 West Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association and Block Watch 3 Empowerment and Awareness $11,998.00 $11,998.00 5.9444
21-146 Royal Palms Neighborhood Patrol 3 Royal Palm home security and safety project $11,600.00 $11,600.00 5.6333
Promoting Safety and Reducing Crime in the North Park
21-147 North Park Central 4 $11,977.00 $11,977.00 6.1444
Central Neighborhood
Improved Quality of Life Through Safer Neighborhoods and
21-148 Cox Meadows Neighborhood Block Watch, Inc. 3 $10,426.00 $10,426.00 6.2889
Stronger Community
21-149 Country Place Community Block Watch 7 Block Watch Group $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.7000
21-151 Woodlawn Park Neighborhood Association 4 WPNA Outreach and Crime Prevention $11,468.00 $11,468.00 6.3667
21-152 DEL NORTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 4 Del Norte Place Alley Lighting and Community Signage $8,923.00 $8,923.00 5.3000
C.J. JORGENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION / Safe Schools
21-153 8 Youth Leaders in ACTion Seminar $9,500.00 $9,500.00 5.9667
Teen Court Network
21-154 Amigos Block Watch 4 2021 Amigos United $8,275.00 $8,275.00 6.8778
21-155 Acoma Park Block Watch 1 Acoma Park Block Watch 2021/2022 Program $6,295.00 $6,295.00 6.9111
Page 265
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-156 KELTON LANE/34TH PLACE / Premiere At Summer Breeze HOA 2 Signage, Safety, and Cleanliness Initiative $11,182.00 $11,182.00 6.5000
21-159 Pierson Place Historic District 4 Crime Awareness, Prevention, and GAIN $11,680.00 $11,680.00 6.9778
Sienna Vista Block Watch - Neighbors Rising Up For Our
21-160 Sienna Vista 7 $10,885.00 $10,885.00 6.9111
Neighborhood
21-161 Simpson Neighborhood Association 4 Simpson Neighborhod 2021 Grant Application $11,408.00 $11,408.00 5.8889
21-163 Rudyville Neighborhood Association 8 Community Start-up $995.00 $995.00 7.0333
21-164 CASA DE PRIMAVERA 4 Block Watch Group $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.7111
21-165 Mountain Preserve Block Watch 3 Neighborhood Cohesion and Safety $5,440.00 $5,440.00 6.5444
21-166 Alta Vista Neighborhood Block Watch 1 Crime Prevention Through Continuing Education $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.8222
21-172 Paseo Pointe Neighborhood Association 8 Paseo Pointe 2021 Block Watch Grant $6,739.00 $6,739.00 5.9111
21-175 Bel Air Neighborhood Association 4 Safely Lighting Our Way $7,028.00 $7,028.00 6.4000
Total
Proposed $1,299,078.00
Award
Page 266
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
The Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee recommends denying funding for the following applications for not meeting the grant program
criteria
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
Grandview Neighborhood Association / Grand View NA, AmeriSchools 2021 Grandview/AmeriSchools Block Watch Crime
21-046 4 $11,946.00 $0.00 5.1444
Academy and City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Dept Prevention and Reduction
2021 Garfield Neighborhood: Improving Community and
Communication to Enhance the Safety of Our Neighbors,
21-048 Garfield Organization A Neighborhood Alliance 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 4.4444
While Aiming to Improve the Quality of Life Within the
Community
EAST SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION & BLOCK East Sunnyslope Block Watch and Neighborhood
21-050 3 $11,827.00 $0.00 4.8778
WATCH Association Continued Improvement
21-057 7th Avenue Merchants 4 2021 BWG SAMA $9,210.00 $0.00 3.8000
Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP / Northtown Homeowners
21-059 3 Lighting Systems for our Community $11,807.00 $0.00 5.0750
Association, Inc.
21-069 Willo Neighborhood Association 4 Willo Grant 2021 $9,878.00 $0.00 4.3556
21-071 Tuscano Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention for a Safer Community $10,033.00 $0.00 5.0556
21-072 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. 2 Light the Way for Safety $11,839.00 $0.00 DQ
21-073 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. / Palm Lakes Village HOA 2 Lightning for Seniors $10,050.00 $0.00 5.1222
Page 267
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-076 Community Alliance of Seventh Avenue 4 Community Partners for Area Unity and Betterment $11,885.00 $0.00 4.2667
21-084 F.Q. Story Block Watch 4 FQ Story Crime Prevention Efforts $10,000.00 $0.00 4.5111
Garfield Neighborhood; Neighbors Looking out for
21-088 Garfield Neighborhood Block Watch 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 2.7000
Neighbors
21-089 Royal Palm Social Club 3 Royal Palm Community $11,660.00 $0.00 4.7889
21-102 El Caro Villas - Condo Complex 5 New El Caro Block Watch 2021 $12,000.00 $0.00 4.5111
21-107 Si Se Puede Neighborhood Association 7 2021 Neighborhood Safety and Community Outreach $8,430.00 $0.00 5.1111
21-114 Collins Sun Devils / ASU PREPARTORY 8 COLLINSSUNDEVILS/ASU PREP LEADERSHIP $10,000.00 $0.00 4.3222
21-122 Cave Creek Preserve Block Watch / 360 Community Management 2 2021 Grant $11,950.00 $0.00 3.3556
21-123 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association / Cesar Chavez High School 8 ACTS "Women of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $0.00 4.6000
21-129 Heritage Heights Block Watch 3 Creating Community $9,900.00 $0.00 4.8222
21-132 Collins Sun Devils / Mountain Pointe High School 6 Collinssundevils/Mountain Pointe Project $10,000.00 $0.00 3.8778
Page 268
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-133 Perry Park Neighborhood Association 8 Safe and United Neighborhood 2021 $9,761.00 $0.00 3.6444
21-134 Northern Manor Townhouse Association 5 Northern Manor Townhouse Association $11,310.00 $0.00 DQ
21-135 Anderson Farm Block Watch/Neighborhood Association 8 FY 2021 Anderson Farms Grant Application $12,000.00 $0.00 DQ
21-140 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/ House of HELPS 8 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/House of HELPS $9,940.00 $0.00 3.7667
Country Place Community Block Watch / Country Place Master
21-150 7 Residents Reaching Residents $11,992.00 $0.00 5.0333
Association HOA
21-158 Roosevelt Action Association 7 Roosevelt Safety & Crime Prevention $11,700.00 $0.00 5.2222
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S&B - Save Our Sisters and Brothers - STEM
21-168 7 $12,000.00 $0.00 4.4667
Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach Program
21-170 Union Hills Condominimum Association 1 LED lighting $3,076.00 $0.00 4.5556
21-174 Coronado Neighborhood Association 1 tool shed/ clean ups $8,700.00 $0.00 1.9556
Total Denied $308,862.00 $0.00
Page 269
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S&B - Save Our Sisters and Brothers - STEM
21-168 7 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.4333
Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach Program
East Sunnyslope Block Watch and Neighborhood
21-050 East Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association & Block Watch 3 $11,827.00 $11,827.00 5.2667
Association Continued Improvement
21-158 Roosevelt Action Association 7 Roosevelt Safety & Crime Prevention $11,700.00 $11,700.00 5.1111
21-107 Si Se Puede Neighborhood Association 7 2021 Neighborhood Safety and Community Outreach $8,430.00 $8,430.00 4.9778
Grandview Neighborhood Association / Grand View NA, AmeriSchools 2021 Grandview/AmeriSchools Block Watch Crime
21-046 4 $11,946.00 $11,946.00 4.8778
Page 270 Academy and City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Dept Prevention and Reduction
21-071 Tuscano Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention for a Safer Community $10,033.00 $10,033.00 4.8000
Country Place Community Block Watch / Country Place Master
21-150 7 Residents Reaching Residents $11,992.00 $11,992.00 4.7889
Association HOA
21-129 Heritage Heights Block Watch 3 Creating Community $9,900.00 $9,900.00 4.7222
21-069 Willo Neighborhood Association 4 Willo Grant 2021 $9,878.00 $9,878.00 4.4778
21-089 Royal Palm Social Club 3 Royal Palm Community $11,660.00 $11,660.00 4.4444
21-076 Community Alliance of Seventh Avenue 4 Community Partners for Area Unity and Betterment $11,885.00 $11,885.00 4.4333
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
21-133 Perry Park Neighborhood Association 8 Safe and United Neighborhood 2021 $9,761.00 $9,761.00 4.4111
2021 Garfield Neighborhood: Improving Community and
Communication to Enhance the Safety of Our Neighbors,
21-048 Garfield Organization A Neighborhood Alliance 8 $11,984.00 $11,984.00 4.3444
While Aiming to Improve the Quality of Life Within the
Community
21-123 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association / Cesar Chavez High School 8 ACTS "Women of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4.3444
21-102 El Caro Villas - Condo Complex 5 New El Caro Block Watch 2021 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4.2667
21-114 Collins Sun Devils / ASU PREPARTORY 8 COLLINSSUNDEVILS/ASU PREP LEADERSHIP $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.2667
Page 271
21-132 Collins Sun Devils / Mountain Pointe High School 6 Collinssundevils/Mountain Pointe Project $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.1444
21-084 F.Q. Story Block Watch 4 FQ Story Crime Prevention Efforts $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.1333
Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP / Northtown Homeowners
21-059 3 Lighting Systems for our Community $11,807.00 $11,807.00 4.0625
Association, Inc.
21-057 7th Avenue Merchants 4 2021 BWG SAMA $9,210.00 $9,210.00 3.8778
21-140 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/ House of HELPS 8 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/House of HELPS $9,940.00 $9,940.00 3.8000
21-170 Union Hills Condominimum Association 1 LED lighting $3,076.00 $3,076.00 3.8000
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
Total
Proposed $231,029.00
Award
The Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee recommends denying funding for the following applications for not meeting the grant program
criteria
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
Page 272 SCORE
21-073 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. / Palm Lakes Village HOA 2 Lightning for Seniors $10,050.00 $0.00 3.4000
21-174 Coronado Neighborhood Association 1 tool shed/ clean ups $8,700.00 $0.00 3.1667
21-122 Cave Creek Preserve Block Watch / 360 Community Management 2 2021 Grant $11,950.00 $0.00 2.8222
Garfield Neighborhood; Neighbors Looking out for
21-088 Garfield Neighborhood Block Watch 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 2.8000
Neighbors
21-072 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. 2 Light the Way for Safety $11,839.00 $0.00 DQ
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
21-134 Northern Manor Townhouse Association 5 Northern Manor Townhouse Association $11,310.00 $0.00 DQ
21-135 Anderson Farm Block Watch/Neighborhood Association 8 FY 2021 Anderson Farms Grant Application $12,000.00 $0.00 DQ
Total Denied $77,833.00
Page 273
Report
Committee's Recommendations for 2021 Grant Program Awards (Ordinance S-
47829)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to amend ordinance (S-
47766) for the Neighborhood Block Watch (NBW) Oversight Committee's
recommendations for the 2021 grant program awards. Authorization of the amendment
will increase the number of agreements from 133 to 153 between the City of Phoenix
and the Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program applicants for the 2021 grant cycle,
and increase the annual funding amount available for all grant applications from
$1,509,747 to $1,700,000. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse funds related to this item in an amount not to exceed $1,700,000.
Summary
Ordinance S-47766 was approved as amended, by City Council on June 23 2021. At
that meeting, City Council members requested that all grant applications receiving a
score of 3.75 or greater be recommended for funding. This amendment will increase
the number of agreements from 133 to 153.
See Attachment A and Revised Attachment A for a list of all 160 grant applications.
Contract Term
The funding period is July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
No matching funds are required.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton and the Police
Department on behalf of the Neighborhood Block Watch Oversight Committee.
Page 254
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-001 Hunter's Village/Tapestry 24 Hr Surveillance 3 Neighborhood Crime Prevention and Involvement $8,480.00 $8,480.00 7.2222
21-002 Weston Park Block Watch - Weston Park/Grayson Square 8 Maintaining Control/Keeping an Eye on our Neighborhood. $4,904.00 $4,904.00 5.3444
21-003 Riverwalk Villages Block Watch 7 Block Watch and Safety Group 2021 $11,655.00 $11,655.00 6.1222
21-005 Laurelwood Homes Block Watch 5 Villa de Paz Crime Prevention Program $11,999.00 $11,999.00 6.6222
21-006 Sierra Colina Block Watch / M.C. Cash School 7 M.C. Cash Wake Up! $10,283.00 $10,283.00 6.3444
21-007 Target Area "B" / Sabis International School 8 Sabis Wake Up! $9,386.00 $9,386.00 5.9333
SUNBURST FARMS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION / Desert
21-008 1 Desert Foothills Wake Up! $10,073.00 $10,073.00 6.2111
Foothills Junior High School
21-009 Redhawk At Rogers Ranch Block Watch / Rogers Ranch School 7 Rogers Ranch Wake Up! Club $11,833.00 $11,833.00 6.2333
21-010 Trailside Point Block Watch / Trailside Point School 7 Trailside Point Wake Up Club $9,273.00 $9,273.00 6.1556
21-011 Riverwalk Villages Block Watch / Cheatham Elementary School 7 Cheatham Wake Up! Club $8,973.00 $8,973.00 6.0778
21-013 Arlington Estates II Neighborhood Association 7 Light it Up and Lock it Down! $11,958.00 $11,958.00 6.0667
Page 255
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
Moon Valley Neighborhood Association / Mountain Sky Junior High
21-014 3 Mountain Sky Wake Up! $9,123.00 $9,123.00 6.0778
School
21-015 Palomino Neighborhood Association / Palomino Intermediate School 2 Palomino Wake Up! Club $9,123.00 $9,123.00 6.1556
21-016 Desert Horizon Precinct Block Watch and PNP 3 Desert Horizon Crime Prevention, Safety, and Outreach $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.0111
21-017 Mountain View Precinct Phoenix - Neighborhood Patrol 4 Mtn View Safe & Engaged $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.4000
21-018 Phoenix Block Watch Advisory Board 3 crime prevention plus $11,850.00 $11,850.00 7.2750
Phoenix Block Watch Advisory Board / Community Engagement
21-019 3 crime prevention plus - 1 $11,645.00 $11,645.00 7.0125
Bureau
21-020 Moon Valley Gardens Neighborhood Block Watch 3 2021 Safer Neighborhood $11,731.00 $11,731.00 7.0889
Moon Valley Gardens Neighborhood Block Watch / Washington
21-021 3 2021 Engaging Youth with Community Involvement $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1222
Elementary School District and Glendale Union High School District
21-022 Sierra Colina Block Watch / Sierra Colina HOA 8 Solutions Style Living During C-19 Pandemic $10,546.00 $10,546.00 5.3667
2021 Grant Application Tatum and Shea Action Area
21-023 Tatum & Shea Action Area Master Block Watch 3 $4,163.00 $4,163.00 6.8667
Master Block Watch
21-025 Black Mountain Community Alliance 1 2021 BMCA Crime Prevention & Safety Projects $11,960.00 $11,960.00 7.5111
Page 256
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-026 Deer Valley Park Neighborhood Block Watch Organization 1 2021 DVPNBWO Crime Prevention & Safety Project $11,475.00 $11,475.00 7.3111
21-027 ROYAL PALM BLOCK WATCH / Royal Palm Middle School 3 Royal Palm Wake Up! Club $9,443.00 $9,443.00 6.3333
21-028 East Glenrosa Avenue 6 East Glenrosa Block Watch $11,170.00 $11,170.00 6.6000
21-029 South Mountain Block Watch / Southwest School 8 Southwest Wake Up! Club $8,366.00 $8,366.00 6.1667
West Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association and Block Watch /
21-030 3 Mountain View Wake Up! Club $9,913.00 $9,913.00 6.1333
Mountain View School
21-031 Target Area "B" / Percy L. Julian School 8 Julian Wake Up! $8,263.00 $8,263.00 5.9111
21-032 South Mountain Village Clean and Beautiful / Jack L. Kuban School 6 Kuban Wake Up! $8,737.00 $8,737.00 5.9556
21-033 Saint John Alliance / Vista Verde Middle School 2 Vista Verde Wake Up! $9,487.00 $9,487.00 6.1333
21-034 Moon Valley 1 Block Watch 3 Moon Valley Pride $6,015.00 $6,015.00 6.5778
Citywide Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol and Education
21-035 Moon Valley Block Watch / Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol (#1895) 3 $11,880.00 $11,880.00 8.4222
program 2021-2022
Black Mountain Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol / Moon Valley 1 Black Mountain Precinct Block Watch & Phoenix
21-036 3 $11,610.00 $11,610.00 7.1222
Block Watch Neighborhood Patrol
Page 257
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
South Mountain Village Clean and Beautiful / Arthur M. Hamilton
21-037 6 Hamilton Wake Up! $8,858.00 $8,858.00 6.2556
School
21-038 Estrella Super Mom's Block Watch / Estrella Middle School 8 Estrella Wake Up! $10,366.00 $10,366.00 5.7444
21-039 Sienna Vista / Santa Maria MIddle School 7 Santa Maria Wake Up! $8,898.00 $8,898.00 6.2111
2021-2022 LLNA Blockwatch Grant-Neighborhood Safety &
21-040 Loma Linda Neighborhood Association 4 $11,787.00 $11,787.00 5.4222
Communication
21-041 Grandview Neighborhood Association 4 Grandview Block Watch Crime Prevention & Reduction $11,915.00 $11,915.00 6.8556
21-042 Royal Palm Neighborhood Council 3 Royal Palm Neighborhood $11,915.00 $11,915.00 5.6667
21-043 Arcadia Camelback Mountain Neighborhood Association 6 Block Watch Grant 2021 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.7333
21-044 West Plaza Neighborhood Association 5 Blight & Crime Suppression Thru Community Action $9,995.00 $9,995.00 6.5222
21-045 Greater Green Gables Neighborhood Association 8 Green Gables Crime Reduction Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.9667
21-047 Mountain Estates Block Watch 3 Mountain Estates/Paradise Gardens 2021-22 $11,859.00 $11,859.00 6.1556
21-049 Moon Valley Neighborhood Association 3 Moon Valley Community Awareness $10,065.00 $10,065.00 7.0333
Page 258
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-051 Grant Park Community Garden 8 Grant Park Barrio Safety Now - Year Two $10,236.00 $10,236.00 5.4889
21-052 North Glen Square Neighborhood Association 5 North Glen Square Neighborhood Crime Prevention $8,345.00 $8,345.00 5.6111
21-053 Tomahawk Village Block Watch / Desert Sands Middle School 5 Desert Sands Wake Up! $8,773.00 $8,773.00 6.2333
21-054 Homestead Block Watch / Charles W Harris School 7 Harris Wake Up! $11,023.00 $11,023.00 6.1222
21-055 ARCADIA OSBORN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1 Block Watch Grant $11,995.00 $11,995.00 6.2778
21-056 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch 1 2021/2022 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1000
21-058 Wilson Coalition / Wilson School 8 Wilson Wake Up! $9,557.00 $9,557.00 6.1778
Preventative Measures in Crime Prevention Through
21-060 Seven Palms Block Watch 3 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.0333
Education
21-061 Central Park Village / Central Park Village Activity Board 3 2021 CPVBW Newsletter $7,712.00 $7,712.00 6.2000
21-062 Marcos de Niza Tenant Council and Community Block Watch 8 Marcos United Community Engagement $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.8444
Moon Valley Block Watch / Phoenix Crime Free-Multi-Housing
21-063 3 Crime Free Multi-Housing Education Project 2021-2022 $11,400.00 $11,400.00 7.3444
Program
Page 259
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-064 Rancho Ventura Neighborhood Association 8 2021 NBWGP $1,900.00 $1,900.00 5.6111
21-065 Simpson Neighborhood Association / Empower College Prep 5 Empower Wake Up! $9,923.00 $9,923.00 6.0444
21-066 Trailside Point Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention: Staying Connected While Staying Safe $7,250.00 $7,250.00 6.5000
21-067 Belcanto Block Watch / Belcanto HOA 2 Belcanto Grant 2021 $11,525.00 $11,525.00 5.6889
21-070 WILLOW CREEK VILLAGE 1 2021 Eliminate The Intruders $1,982.00 $1,982.00 6.4000
21-075 Desert Cove and Friends Block Watch 3 Desert Cove and Friends BW Application 2021 $11,895.00 $11,895.00 6.3250
Laveen Ranch Block Watch for Crossroads/Gateway / Laveen Ranch
21-077 7 We Care, We Watch, We Call! $11,960.00 $11,960.00 7.0889
HOA
To Detect, Deter and Delay Crime in the John Jacobs
21-078 John Jacobs Block Watch 3 $11,496.00 $11,496.00 6.9556
Elementary School Neighborhood
21-079 Wilson Coalition / Wilson School District 8 Wilson Community Involvement Project $11,986.00 $11,986.00 5.3333
Laveen Ranch Block Watch for Crossroads/Gateway / Desert
21-080 7 Desert Meadows Wake Up! $9,743.00 $9,743.00 6.2222
Meadows School
Safe Schools "Focus On Excellence" / Safe Schools Youth Programs,
21-081 8 Safe Schools CityWide Diversion Project $11,000.00 $11,000.00 6.1667
LLC
Page 260
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
NORTH CENTRAL PHOENIX HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
21-082 6 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program $11,995.00 $11,995.00 5.5667
(NCPHA)
21-083 Orangewood Village Block Watch 1 Orangewood Home, Safety information distribution system $7,550.00 $7,550.00 6.0889
21-085 Mountain Estates Block Watch / Shea Middle School 3 Shea Wake Up! $9,373.00 $9,373.00 6.0222
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S.&B - Save Our Sister and Brothers - Safety
21-087 7 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.1333
Missionary Baptist Church Education Awareness and Mentorship Program
21-090 Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP 3 Safety and Security for Community $7,205.00 $7,205.00 6.4000
21-091 Tomahawk Village Block Watch / City of Phx. After School Center 5 Rally, Resolute and Resilient $9,221.00 $9,221.00 6.6222
21-092 Sunnyslope Historical Society and Museum 3 2021-2022 Season $10,520.00 $10,520.00 5.8111
Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance / Maryvale Estrella 2021 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Phoenix Neighborhood
21-093 5 $11,985.00 $11,985.00 6.8750
Mountain Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol Patrol
2021 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance
21-094 Maryvale Estrella Mountain Community Alliance 5 $11,996.00 $11,996.00 6.6875
Community Engagement
Crime Prevention Through Community Education and
21-095 Cactus Park Community Alliance 1 $11,825.00 $11,825.00 7.2556
Support
21-096 P.R.I.D.E., Inc. 4 P.R.I.D.E. neighborhood $5,124.00 $5,124.00 6.5556
Page 261
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-097 Anthem Neighborhood Watch-West 1 ANW 2021 $11,200.00 $11,200.00 6.6667
Patrol area to deter crime and create a safer environment
21-098 Ridge Runners 2 1 $3,413.00 $3,413.00 7.5000
for our residents.
21-099 Bougainvillea Block Watch 8 Bougainvillea Block Watch $6,920.00 $6,920.00 6.0222
21-100 St. Gregory Neighborhood Assoc 4 St Gregory Neighborhood Grant 2021 $11,800.00 $11,800.00 7.1556
21-101 Metro Block Watch 1 Resident Safety & Education Phase 2 $10,795.00 $10,795.00 6.8444
21-103 Washington Park Neighborhood Association 5 Neighborhood Safety and Pride $10,186.00 $10,186.00 7.3444
21-104 Encanto-Palmcroft Historic Preservation Association 4 Alley Saftety Lighting $3,000.00 $3,000.00 5.5667
Washington Park Neighborhood Association / Maryland Elementary
21-105 7 Washington Park Crime Prevention Program $10,000.00 $10,000.00 6.1778
School
2021/2022 Partnership between the Cactus Wren Block
21-106 Cactus Wren Neighborhood Block Watch / Cactus Park Police Precinct 1 $10,770.00 $10,770.00 6.3556
Watch and the Cactus Park Police Precinct
21-108 North Encanto Neighborhood Alliance 4 Sustaining Safety During Challenging Times $8,426.00 $8,426.00 5.5000
21-109 Hatcher Road Business Alliance 3 theHUB Expanded Safety | Security & Engagement $11,974.00 $11,974.00 6.6889
Page 262
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-110 PHX LUV 3 PHX LUV 2021 Block Watch Engagement Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.5000
21-112 Lindo Park Neighborhood Association/Block Watch 8 Crime Prevention and Neighborhood Involvement $5,647.00 $5,647.00 6.3750
21-113 Westwood Community Association 4 Westwood meeting the Challenges of Crime and Blight $11,832.00 $11,832.00 5.7889
21-115 Redhawk At Rogers Ranch Block Watch 7 2021 Redhawk at Rogers Ranch Block Watch $11,830.00 $11,830.00 6.4778
21-116 Sunnyslope Village Alliance 3 Sunnyslope Community Revitalization $11,893.00 $11,893.00 5.3222
21-117 Mountain Trails Neighborhood Block Watch / Mountain Trails HOA 8 Mountain Trails Renewal & Rejuvenation $6,190.00 $6,190.00 5.8222
21-118 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association 8 ACTS "Men of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.6111
21-119 Central City Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol 8 Central City Precinct Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol - 21-119 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 7.5556
Cactus Park Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol Support
21-120 Cactus Park Phoenix Neighborhood Patrol 1 $11,980.00 $11,980.00 7.6333
Program
Paseo Pointe Neighborhood Association / Paseo Pointe Elementary
21-121 7 Paseo Pointe Wake Up! $9,073.00 $9,073.00 6.0222
School
21-124 CAPITOL NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION 8 2021 Capitol Area Crime Reduction $5,700.00 $5,700.00 6.0222
Page 263
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-125 Ocotillo Glen 5 Crime Prevention & Community Involvement $11,990.00 $11,990.00 5.7875
21-126 Laveen Crossing Block Watch 8 2021 Laveen Crossing Block Watch $12,000.00 $11,910.00 7.0111
ABLE ( Arizona Black Law Enforcement Employees ) 2021
21-127 Arizona Black Law Enforcement Employees (ABLE) 5 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 5.9556
Criminal Justice Conference1
21-128 Canal North Neighborhood Association 4 Canal North Crime Prevention Task Force 2021 $6,766.00 $6,766.00 6.5222
21-130 Westwood Village & Estates Neighborhood Association 4 2021 Block Watch Grant $9,006.00 $9,006.00 6.1333
Marcos de Niza Tenant Council and Community Block Watch / Phoenix
21-131 8 CCS Community Connection $11,000.00 $11,000.00 5.9444
Revitalization Corporation
21-136 Safe Schools "Focus On Excellence" / C.J. Jorgensen School 7 RSD 'Teen Court' Project $11,000.00 $11,000.00 6.4556
21-137 Norton Vista Neighborhood Association 3 2021 Back on Track $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.3000
21-139 Vecinos Unidos Siempre / Granada Est School 4 Crime Prevention: Investing in kids 2021 $9,330.00 $9,330.00 6.3889
21-141 Midtown Neighborhood Association 4 Keeping Community Connections Alive $10,742.00 $10,742.00 6.1000
21-142 Woodlea/Melrose Neighborhood Association 4 Woodlea/Melrose Neighborhood Association $10,270.00 $10,270.00 6.7333
Page 264
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-143 Carnation Association of Neighbors 4 Carnation 2021 NBW Program $9,146.00 $9,146.00 6.2222
21-145 West Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association and Block Watch 3 Empowerment and Awareness $11,998.00 $11,998.00 5.9444
21-146 Royal Palms Neighborhood Patrol 3 Royal Palm home security and safety project $11,600.00 $11,600.00 5.6333
Promoting Safety and Reducing Crime in the North Park
21-147 North Park Central 4 $11,977.00 $11,977.00 6.1444
Central Neighborhood
Improved Quality of Life Through Safer Neighborhoods and
21-148 Cox Meadows Neighborhood Block Watch, Inc. 3 $10,426.00 $10,426.00 6.2889
Stronger Community
21-149 Country Place Community Block Watch 7 Block Watch Group $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.7000
21-151 Woodlawn Park Neighborhood Association 4 WPNA Outreach and Crime Prevention $11,468.00 $11,468.00 6.3667
21-152 DEL NORTE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 4 Del Norte Place Alley Lighting and Community Signage $8,923.00 $8,923.00 5.3000
C.J. JORGENSEN NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION / Safe Schools
21-153 8 Youth Leaders in ACTion Seminar $9,500.00 $9,500.00 5.9667
Teen Court Network
21-154 Amigos Block Watch 4 2021 Amigos United $8,275.00 $8,275.00 6.8778
21-155 Acoma Park Block Watch 1 Acoma Park Block Watch 2021/2022 Program $6,295.00 $6,295.00 6.9111
Page 265
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-156 KELTON LANE/34TH PLACE / Premiere At Summer Breeze HOA 2 Signage, Safety, and Cleanliness Initiative $11,182.00 $11,182.00 6.5000
21-159 Pierson Place Historic District 4 Crime Awareness, Prevention, and GAIN $11,680.00 $11,680.00 6.9778
Sienna Vista Block Watch - Neighbors Rising Up For Our
21-160 Sienna Vista 7 $10,885.00 $10,885.00 6.9111
Neighborhood
21-161 Simpson Neighborhood Association 4 Simpson Neighborhod 2021 Grant Application $11,408.00 $11,408.00 5.8889
21-163 Rudyville Neighborhood Association 8 Community Start-up $995.00 $995.00 7.0333
21-164 CASA DE PRIMAVERA 4 Block Watch Group $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.7111
21-165 Mountain Preserve Block Watch 3 Neighborhood Cohesion and Safety $5,440.00 $5,440.00 6.5444
21-166 Alta Vista Neighborhood Block Watch 1 Crime Prevention Through Continuing Education $12,000.00 $12,000.00 6.8222
21-172 Paseo Pointe Neighborhood Association 8 Paseo Pointe 2021 Block Watch Grant $6,739.00 $6,739.00 5.9111
21-175 Bel Air Neighborhood Association 4 Safely Lighting Our Way $7,028.00 $7,028.00 6.4000
Total
Proposed $1,299,078.00
Award
Page 266
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
The Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee recommends denying funding for the following applications for not meeting the grant program
criteria
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
Grandview Neighborhood Association / Grand View NA, AmeriSchools 2021 Grandview/AmeriSchools Block Watch Crime
21-046 4 $11,946.00 $0.00 5.1444
Academy and City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Dept Prevention and Reduction
2021 Garfield Neighborhood: Improving Community and
Communication to Enhance the Safety of Our Neighbors,
21-048 Garfield Organization A Neighborhood Alliance 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 4.4444
While Aiming to Improve the Quality of Life Within the
Community
EAST SUNNYSLOPE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION & BLOCK East Sunnyslope Block Watch and Neighborhood
21-050 3 $11,827.00 $0.00 4.8778
WATCH Association Continued Improvement
21-057 7th Avenue Merchants 4 2021 BWG SAMA $9,210.00 $0.00 3.8000
Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP / Northtown Homeowners
21-059 3 Lighting Systems for our Community $11,807.00 $0.00 5.0750
Association, Inc.
21-069 Willo Neighborhood Association 4 Willo Grant 2021 $9,878.00 $0.00 4.3556
21-071 Tuscano Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention for a Safer Community $10,033.00 $0.00 5.0556
21-072 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. 2 Light the Way for Safety $11,839.00 $0.00 DQ
21-073 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. / Palm Lakes Village HOA 2 Lightning for Seniors $10,050.00 $0.00 5.1222
Page 267
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-076 Community Alliance of Seventh Avenue 4 Community Partners for Area Unity and Betterment $11,885.00 $0.00 4.2667
21-084 F.Q. Story Block Watch 4 FQ Story Crime Prevention Efforts $10,000.00 $0.00 4.5111
Garfield Neighborhood; Neighbors Looking out for
21-088 Garfield Neighborhood Block Watch 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 2.7000
Neighbors
21-089 Royal Palm Social Club 3 Royal Palm Community $11,660.00 $0.00 4.7889
21-102 El Caro Villas - Condo Complex 5 New El Caro Block Watch 2021 $12,000.00 $0.00 4.5111
21-107 Si Se Puede Neighborhood Association 7 2021 Neighborhood Safety and Community Outreach $8,430.00 $0.00 5.1111
21-114 Collins Sun Devils / ASU PREPARTORY 8 COLLINSSUNDEVILS/ASU PREP LEADERSHIP $10,000.00 $0.00 4.3222
21-122 Cave Creek Preserve Block Watch / 360 Community Management 2 2021 Grant $11,950.00 $0.00 3.3556
21-123 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association / Cesar Chavez High School 8 ACTS "Women of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $0.00 4.6000
21-129 Heritage Heights Block Watch 3 Creating Community $9,900.00 $0.00 4.8222
21-132 Collins Sun Devils / Mountain Pointe High School 6 Collinssundevils/Mountain Pointe Project $10,000.00 $0.00 3.8778
Page 268
Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED REVIEW
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD SCORE
21-133 Perry Park Neighborhood Association 8 Safe and United Neighborhood 2021 $9,761.00 $0.00 3.6444
21-134 Northern Manor Townhouse Association 5 Northern Manor Townhouse Association $11,310.00 $0.00 DQ
21-135 Anderson Farm Block Watch/Neighborhood Association 8 FY 2021 Anderson Farms Grant Application $12,000.00 $0.00 DQ
21-140 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/ House of HELPS 8 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/House of HELPS $9,940.00 $0.00 3.7667
Country Place Community Block Watch / Country Place Master
21-150 7 Residents Reaching Residents $11,992.00 $0.00 5.0333
Association HOA
21-158 Roosevelt Action Association 7 Roosevelt Safety & Crime Prevention $11,700.00 $0.00 5.2222
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S&B - Save Our Sisters and Brothers - STEM
21-168 7 $12,000.00 $0.00 4.4667
Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach Program
21-170 Union Hills Condominimum Association 1 LED lighting $3,076.00 $0.00 4.5556
21-174 Coronado Neighborhood Association 1 tool shed/ clean ups $8,700.00 $0.00 1.9556
Total Denied $308,862.00 $0.00
Page 269
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
Faith Missionary Baptist Church Neighborhood Association / Faith S.O.S&B - Save Our Sisters and Brothers - STEM
21-168 7 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 5.4333
Missionary Baptist Church Community Outreach Program
East Sunnyslope Block Watch and Neighborhood
21-050 East Sunnyslope Neighborhood Association & Block Watch 3 $11,827.00 $11,827.00 5.2667
Association Continued Improvement
21-158 Roosevelt Action Association 7 Roosevelt Safety & Crime Prevention $11,700.00 $11,700.00 5.1111
21-107 Si Se Puede Neighborhood Association 7 2021 Neighborhood Safety and Community Outreach $8,430.00 $8,430.00 4.9778
Grandview Neighborhood Association / Grand View NA, AmeriSchools 2021 Grandview/AmeriSchools Block Watch Crime
21-046 4 $11,946.00 $11,946.00 4.8778
Page 270 Academy and City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Dept Prevention and Reduction
21-071 Tuscano Block Watch 7 Crime Prevention for a Safer Community $10,033.00 $10,033.00 4.8000
Country Place Community Block Watch / Country Place Master
21-150 7 Residents Reaching Residents $11,992.00 $11,992.00 4.7889
Association HOA
21-129 Heritage Heights Block Watch 3 Creating Community $9,900.00 $9,900.00 4.7222
21-069 Willo Neighborhood Association 4 Willo Grant 2021 $9,878.00 $9,878.00 4.4778
21-089 Royal Palm Social Club 3 Royal Palm Community $11,660.00 $11,660.00 4.4444
21-076 Community Alliance of Seventh Avenue 4 Community Partners for Area Unity and Betterment $11,885.00 $11,885.00 4.4333
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
21-133 Perry Park Neighborhood Association 8 Safe and United Neighborhood 2021 $9,761.00 $9,761.00 4.4111
2021 Garfield Neighborhood: Improving Community and
Communication to Enhance the Safety of Our Neighbors,
21-048 Garfield Organization A Neighborhood Alliance 8 $11,984.00 $11,984.00 4.3444
While Aiming to Improve the Quality of Life Within the
Community
21-123 Bernard Black Neighborhood Association / Cesar Chavez High School 8 ACTS "Women of Valor" Leadership Development Project $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4.3444
21-102 El Caro Villas - Condo Complex 5 New El Caro Block Watch 2021 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 4.2667
21-114 Collins Sun Devils / ASU PREPARTORY 8 COLLINSSUNDEVILS/ASU PREP LEADERSHIP $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.2667
Page 271
21-132 Collins Sun Devils / Mountain Pointe High School 6 Collinssundevils/Mountain Pointe Project $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.1444
21-084 F.Q. Story Block Watch 4 FQ Story Crime Prevention Efforts $10,000.00 $10,000.00 4.1333
Northtown Community Block Watch/PNP / Northtown Homeowners
21-059 3 Lighting Systems for our Community $11,807.00 $11,807.00 4.0625
Association, Inc.
21-057 7th Avenue Merchants 4 2021 BWG SAMA $9,210.00 $9,210.00 3.8778
21-140 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/ House of HELPS 8 Damion Gosa Memorial FNDNT/House of HELPS $9,940.00 $9,940.00 3.8000
21-170 Union Hills Condominimum Association 1 LED lighting $3,076.00 $3,076.00 3.8000
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
Total
Proposed $231,029.00
Award
The Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee recommends denying funding for the following applications for not meeting the grant program
criteria
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
Page 272 SCORE
21-073 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. / Palm Lakes Village HOA 2 Lightning for Seniors $10,050.00 $0.00 3.4000
21-174 Coronado Neighborhood Association 1 tool shed/ clean ups $8,700.00 $0.00 3.1667
21-122 Cave Creek Preserve Block Watch / 360 Community Management 2 2021 Grant $11,950.00 $0.00 2.8222
Garfield Neighborhood; Neighbors Looking out for
21-088 Garfield Neighborhood Block Watch 8 $11,984.00 $0.00 2.8000
Neighbors
21-072 PALM LAKES VILLAGE, INC. 2 Light the Way for Safety $11,839.00 $0.00 DQ
REVISED Attachment A
2021 Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Funding Recommendations Proposed by the
Neighborhood Block Watch Grant Program Oversight Committee
REVISED
COUNCIL AMOUNT PROPOSED
APPLICANT / CO-APPLICANT PROJECT TITLE REVIEW
NUMBER DISTRICT REQUESTED AWARD
SCORE
21-134 Northern Manor Townhouse Association 5 Northern Manor Townhouse Association $11,310.00 $0.00 DQ
21-135 Anderson Farm Block Watch/Neighborhood Association 8 FY 2021 Anderson Farms Grant Application $12,000.00 $0.00 DQ
Total Denied $77,833.00
Page 273
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Phoenix Goodyear Airport Drainage Improvements - Design-Bid-Build Services -
AV41000074 (Ordinance S-47773)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Doege Development
LLC as the lowest-priced, responsive, and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with Doege Development LLC for design-bid-build services for the Phoenix
Goodyear Airport Drainage Improvements project. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for the services will not
exceed $2,636,592.28.
Summary
The purpose of the Phoenix Goodyear Airport Drainage Improvements project (Project)
is to make improvements to the drainage system on Phoenix Goodyear Airport
(Airport) by converting open ditches to underground storm drain piping. The Project
consists of constructing underground piping to replace the irrigation ditch on the north
side of the Airport; connecting to the Roosevelt Irrigation District irrigation channel on
the north end and the Airport storm drain on the southern end; constructing
underground piping to enclose the drainage channel in the southeastern portion of the
Airport, which conveys combined stormwater and irrigation tailwater flows from the
existing storm drain system to the Airport’s existing outfall; constructing underground
piping that connects to a junction structure at the southern end of the Airport to
discharge existing outfall through culverts under the Airport access road; and
constructing culverts and catch basins needed for the Project.
Doege Development LLC's services include integration with existing systems, minimal
impact to Airport or drainage operations, construction of north system first, followed by
the south system, coordination with Goodyear Tire and Rubber for existing utilities,
coordination with Southwest Gas where its gas line crosses the drainage path,
compliance with applicable building codes whether applicable to Maricopa County, City
of Phoenix, Goodyear, or Avondale, compliance with Federal Aviation Administration
Advisory Circulars for on-airport construction, and other work as required for a
complete Project.
The agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and to
critical operations for the City.
Page 274
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Six bids were received on May 18,
2021 and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in compliance with
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.
The opinion of probable cost and the three lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
Opinion of Probable Cost: $2,875,366.00
Doege Development LLC: $2,636,592.28
Granite Construction Company: $2,665,376.00
FPS Civil, LLC: $2,731,907.69
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 180 calendar days from issuance of the notice to
proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement before the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Doege Development LLC will not exceed $2,636,592.28,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
This project will use federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department has received two Arizona Department of
Transportation grants. The Budget and Research Department will separately review
and approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may
be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Design Services Agreement 143091 (Ordinance S-42716) on June 22,
2016; and
· Engineering Construction Administration and Inspection Services Agreement
Page 275
153656 (Ordinance S-47243) on Jan. 20, 2021.
Location
1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Aviation
Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 276
Report
AV41000074 (Ordinance S-47773)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Doege Development
LLC as the lowest-priced, responsive, and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with Doege Development LLC for design-bid-build services for the Phoenix
Goodyear Airport Drainage Improvements project. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for the services will not
exceed $2,636,592.28.
Summary
The purpose of the Phoenix Goodyear Airport Drainage Improvements project (Project)
is to make improvements to the drainage system on Phoenix Goodyear Airport
(Airport) by converting open ditches to underground storm drain piping. The Project
consists of constructing underground piping to replace the irrigation ditch on the north
side of the Airport; connecting to the Roosevelt Irrigation District irrigation channel on
the north end and the Airport storm drain on the southern end; constructing
underground piping to enclose the drainage channel in the southeastern portion of the
Airport, which conveys combined stormwater and irrigation tailwater flows from the
existing storm drain system to the Airport’s existing outfall; constructing underground
piping that connects to a junction structure at the southern end of the Airport to
discharge existing outfall through culverts under the Airport access road; and
constructing culverts and catch basins needed for the Project.
Doege Development LLC's services include integration with existing systems, minimal
impact to Airport or drainage operations, construction of north system first, followed by
the south system, coordination with Goodyear Tire and Rubber for existing utilities,
coordination with Southwest Gas where its gas line crosses the drainage path,
compliance with applicable building codes whether applicable to Maricopa County, City
of Phoenix, Goodyear, or Avondale, compliance with Federal Aviation Administration
Advisory Circulars for on-airport construction, and other work as required for a
complete Project.
The agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and to
critical operations for the City.
Page 274
Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Six bids were received on May 18,
2021 and were sent to the Equal Opportunity Department for review to determine
subcontractor eligibility and contractor responsiveness in compliance with
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program requirements.
The opinion of probable cost and the three lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:
Opinion of Probable Cost: $2,875,366.00
Doege Development LLC: $2,636,592.28
Granite Construction Company: $2,665,376.00
FPS Civil, LLC: $2,731,907.69
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 180 calendar days from issuance of the notice to
proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement before the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Doege Development LLC will not exceed $2,636,592.28,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
This project will use federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation DBE program.
Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department has received two Arizona Department of
Transportation grants. The Budget and Research Department will separately review
and approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may
be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may
extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Design Services Agreement 143091 (Ordinance S-42716) on June 22,
2016; and
· Engineering Construction Administration and Inspection Services Agreement
Page 275
153656 (Ordinance S-47243) on Jan. 20, 2021.
Location
1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Aviation
Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 276
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement - Amendment - 305 Parking
Garage (Ordinance S-47781)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 136034 with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona V, LLC, to provide additional funding for the solar renewable
energy credit purchase agreement with the Public Works Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures included in this amendment will not exceed $237,567.48.
Summary
The agreement with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona V, LLC is used for maintenance services for the photovoltaic
(PV) system located on the rooftop of the 305 Parking Garage. The power produced
by the PV system is purchased at an annual fixed rate and increases by 2.75 percent
annually. The rate paid for solar utility power is intended to be lower than the cost of
energy from the public utility, Arizona Public Service, over the 20-year term of the
agreement. The agreement is currently in year eight. The additional funding is for the
annual maintenance and electrical output produced from the current PV system.
Contract Term
The initial 20-year term of the agreement began on May 2, 2013, with one, five-year
option to extend, for a total term of 25 years and an end date of May 1, 2038. There
will be no change to the agreement term as part of this amendment.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase agreement
was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $37,500. Amendments increased the
authorization for the agreement by an additional $264,884.52. This amendment will
increase the authorization by an additional $237,567.48, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $549,067.48.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 277
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Qualified Vendors List for the Design, Build and Finance of Solar Projects on Oct. 6,
2010;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 (Payment Ordinance
S-42682) on June 22, 2016;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 (Payment Ordinance
S-42866) on Sept. 21, 2016; and
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-44423) on April 4, 2018.
Location
The 305 Parking Garage is located at 305 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 278
Report
Garage (Ordinance S-47781)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 136034 with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona V, LLC, to provide additional funding for the solar renewable
energy credit purchase agreement with the Public Works Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures included in this amendment will not exceed $237,567.48.
Summary
The agreement with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona V, LLC is used for maintenance services for the photovoltaic
(PV) system located on the rooftop of the 305 Parking Garage. The power produced
by the PV system is purchased at an annual fixed rate and increases by 2.75 percent
annually. The rate paid for solar utility power is intended to be lower than the cost of
energy from the public utility, Arizona Public Service, over the 20-year term of the
agreement. The agreement is currently in year eight. The additional funding is for the
annual maintenance and electrical output produced from the current PV system.
Contract Term
The initial 20-year term of the agreement began on May 2, 2013, with one, five-year
option to extend, for a total term of 25 years and an end date of May 1, 2038. There
will be no change to the agreement term as part of this amendment.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase agreement
was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $37,500. Amendments increased the
authorization for the agreement by an additional $264,884.52. This amendment will
increase the authorization by an additional $237,567.48, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $549,067.48.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 277
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Qualified Vendors List for the Design, Build and Finance of Solar Projects on Oct. 6,
2010;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 (Payment Ordinance
S-42682) on June 22, 2016;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 (Payment Ordinance
S-42866) on Sept. 21, 2016; and
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136034 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-44423) on April 4, 2018.
Location
The 305 Parking Garage is located at 305 W. Washington St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 278
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement - Amendment - Adams
Street Garage (Ordinance S-47782)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 136036 with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Arizona Star VI, LLC, to provide additional funding for the solar renewable
energy credit purchase agreement with the Public Works Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures included in this amendment will not exceed $251,774.
Summary
The agreement with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona VI, LLC is used for maintenance services for the photovoltaic
(PV) system located on the rooftop of the Adams Street Garage. The power produced
by the PV system is purchased at an annual fixed rate and increases by 2.75 percent
annually. The rate paid for solar utility power is intended to be lower than the cost of
energy from the public utility, Arizona Public Service, over the 20-year term of the
agreement. The agreement is currently in year eight. The additional funding is for the
annual maintenance and electrical output produced from the current PV system.
Contract Term
The initial 20-year term of the agreement began on May 2, 2013, with one, five-year
option to extend, for a total agreement term of 25 years and an end date of May 1,
2038.There will be no change to the agreement term as part of this amendment.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase agreement
was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $115,000. Amendments increased the
authorization for the agreement by an additional $328,000. This amendment will
increase the authorization by an additional $251,774, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $694,774.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 279
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Qualified Vendors List for the Design, Build and Finance of Solar Projects on Oct. 6,
2010;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 (Payment Ordinance
S-42122) on Nov. 18, 2015;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 (Payment Ordinance
S-42866) on Sept. 21, 2016; and
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-44424) on April 4, 2018
Location
The Adams Street Garage is located at 310 W. Adams St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 280
Report
Street Garage (Ordinance S-47782)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 136036 with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Arizona Star VI, LLC, to provide additional funding for the solar renewable
energy credit purchase agreement with the Public Works Department. Further request
to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures included in this amendment will not exceed $251,774.
Summary
The agreement with Goldman Sachs Renewable Power Operating Company,
LLC/Solar Star Arizona VI, LLC is used for maintenance services for the photovoltaic
(PV) system located on the rooftop of the Adams Street Garage. The power produced
by the PV system is purchased at an annual fixed rate and increases by 2.75 percent
annually. The rate paid for solar utility power is intended to be lower than the cost of
energy from the public utility, Arizona Public Service, over the 20-year term of the
agreement. The agreement is currently in year eight. The additional funding is for the
annual maintenance and electrical output produced from the current PV system.
Contract Term
The initial 20-year term of the agreement began on May 2, 2013, with one, five-year
option to extend, for a total agreement term of 25 years and an end date of May 1,
2038.There will be no change to the agreement term as part of this amendment.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase agreement
was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $115,000. Amendments increased the
authorization for the agreement by an additional $328,000. This amendment will
increase the authorization by an additional $251,774, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $694,774.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 279
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Qualified Vendors List for the Design, Build and Finance of Solar Projects on Oct. 6,
2010;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 (Payment Ordinance
S-42122) on Nov. 18, 2015;
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 (Payment Ordinance
S-42866) on Sept. 21, 2016; and
· Solar Renewable Energy Credit Purchase Agreement 136036 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-44424) on April 4, 2018
Location
The Adams Street Garage is located at 310 W. Adams St.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 280
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Contract Recommendation for Fuel Site Computer Maintenance (Ordinance S-
47796)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Multiforce Systems Corporation for hardware and software support of the City's
fuel management systems. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. This item will have an aggregate value of $677,925.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for 86 fuel facilities containing systems
that enable data entry and communication between the fuel facility and Public Works.
These systems are required to allow access to fuel and to provide electricity for all City
-owned vehicles and equipment. These systems also track fuel and electricity usage,
monitor fuel inventories, and monitor equipment odometers for the preventative
maintenance scheduling of the vehicles and equipment. This agreement will allow
necessary maintenance and repairs of these systems, which is necessary for fueling
all of the City's vehicles and equipment.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing that Multiforce Systems Corporation is the
sole source provider for the Fuel Force system that is installed at all 86 fuel facilities.
Contract Term
The initial one-year contract term will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021, with four, one-
year options to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of up to
five years.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract including all option years is $677,925, including all
applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $135,585.
Page 281
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 282
Report
47796)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Multiforce Systems Corporation for hardware and software support of the City's
fuel management systems. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. This item will have an aggregate value of $677,925.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for 86 fuel facilities containing systems
that enable data entry and communication between the fuel facility and Public Works.
These systems are required to allow access to fuel and to provide electricity for all City
-owned vehicles and equipment. These systems also track fuel and electricity usage,
monitor fuel inventories, and monitor equipment odometers for the preventative
maintenance scheduling of the vehicles and equipment. This agreement will allow
necessary maintenance and repairs of these systems, which is necessary for fueling
all of the City's vehicles and equipment.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing that Multiforce Systems Corporation is the
sole source provider for the Fuel Force system that is installed at all 86 fuel facilities.
Contract Term
The initial one-year contract term will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021, with four, one-
year options to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of up to
five years.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract including all option years is $677,925, including all
applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $135,585.
Page 281
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 282
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Energy Management Control Systems Installation and Upgrades (Ordinance S-
47797)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Johnson Controls, Inc.; Siemens Industry, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.;
Climatec, LLC; and Arizona Control Specialists, Inc. for the installation and upgrade of
Energy Management Controls Systems in City-owned facilities. Further request to
authorize for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. These
agreements will have an aggregate value of $5 million.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for installing, replacing, and upgrading
Energy Management Controls Systems (EMCS) in City-owned facilities. These
systems control and monitor energy consuming devices including heating and cooling
equipment, fans, and pumps. The City owns multiple facilities with aging equipment
that requires upgrades and new installations to continue maintaining air conditioning
and heating temperatures in the facilities.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing unusual nature. Johnson Controls, Inc.;
Siemens Industry, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.; Climatec, LLC; and Arizona Control Specialists,
Inc. are familiar with the City-owned facilities and have the proven quality and
workmanship necessary to upgrade and install new systems.
Contract Term
The initial three-year agreement term will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021, with two,
one-year options to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total agreement term
of up to five years.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements including all option years is $5 million,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $1 million.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 283
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 284
Report
47797)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate
agreements with: Johnson Controls, Inc.; Siemens Industry, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.;
Climatec, LLC; and Arizona Control Specialists, Inc. for the installation and upgrade of
Energy Management Controls Systems in City-owned facilities. Further request to
authorize for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. These
agreements will have an aggregate value of $5 million.
Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for installing, replacing, and upgrading
Energy Management Controls Systems (EMCS) in City-owned facilities. These
systems control and monitor energy consuming devices including heating and cooling
equipment, fans, and pumps. The City owns multiple facilities with aging equipment
that requires upgrades and new installations to continue maintaining air conditioning
and heating temperatures in the facilities.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo citing unusual nature. Johnson Controls, Inc.;
Siemens Industry, Inc.; Trane US, Inc.; Climatec, LLC; and Arizona Control Specialists,
Inc. are familiar with the City-owned facilities and have the proven quality and
workmanship necessary to upgrade and install new systems.
Contract Term
The initial three-year agreement term will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021, with two,
one-year options to extend in increments of up to one year, for a total agreement term
of up to five years.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreements including all option years is $5 million,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $1 million.
Funding is available in the Public Works Department's budget.
Page 283
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 284
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
"For Official Use Only" Wording Exemption for Unmarked City Vehicles
(Resolution 21945)
Request the Phoenix City Council adopt a resolution to exempt certain City vehicles
from displaying the wording, "For Official Use Only" as referenced under Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 38-538, 38-538.01 and 38-358.03, for the period of
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Summary
This resolution exempts certain vehicles owned or leased by the City of Phoenix,
including vehicles in the Police, Fire, Human Services, and Aviation departments.
A.R.S. section 38-538.03 stipulates that the governing body may grant such an
exemption for a period of time not to exceed one year. These vehicles are used to
conduct social service programs, investigations or other confidential activities.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 285
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING CERTAIN CITY
VEHICLES FROM DESIGNATION AS “FOR OFFICIAL
USE ONLY.”
AF
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
T
SECTION 1. That, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-538,
38-538.01, and 38-538.03 certain vehicles in the Police, Fire, Human Services, and
Aviation departments, used to conduct social service programs, investigations, or other
R
confidential activities, are hereby exempted from the statutory requirement that motor
vehicles owned or leased by the state or its political subdivisions be designated “For
Official Use Only.”
D SECTION 2. That the exemptions provided for herein shall be effective for
the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Page 286
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AF
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
T
BY: _________________________________
__________________________________
REVIEWED BY:
R
____________________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
PJB:efl:(LF21-1778):7-01-21:2262566_1.doc
D
Page 287
Report
(Resolution 21945)
Request the Phoenix City Council adopt a resolution to exempt certain City vehicles
from displaying the wording, "For Official Use Only" as referenced under Arizona
Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) sections 38-538, 38-538.01 and 38-358.03, for the period of
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Summary
This resolution exempts certain vehicles owned or leased by the City of Phoenix,
including vehicles in the Police, Fire, Human Services, and Aviation departments.
A.R.S. section 38-538.03 stipulates that the governing body may grant such an
exemption for a period of time not to exceed one year. These vehicles are used to
conduct social service programs, investigations or other confidential activities.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 285
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING CERTAIN CITY
VEHICLES FROM DESIGNATION AS “FOR OFFICIAL
USE ONLY.”
AF
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as
follows:
T
SECTION 1. That, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-538,
38-538.01, and 38-538.03 certain vehicles in the Police, Fire, Human Services, and
Aviation departments, used to conduct social service programs, investigations, or other
R
confidential activities, are hereby exempted from the statutory requirement that motor
vehicles owned or leased by the state or its political subdivisions be designated “For
Official Use Only.”
D SECTION 2. That the exemptions provided for herein shall be effective for
the period of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022.
Page 286
PASSED by the City Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
_____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AF
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
T
BY: _________________________________
__________________________________
REVIEWED BY:
R
____________________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
PJB:efl:(LF21-1778):7-01-21:2262566_1.doc
D
Page 287
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Apply for Transportation Funding for Design Assistance Program Grants
through Maricopa Association of Governments (Ordinance S-47791)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and if
awarded, enter into agreements, if necessary, for transportation funding through the
Maricopa Association of Governments Design Assistance Program. The Street
Transportation Department is requesting to apply for a Design Assistance Program
grant submittal. A local agency match is not required for this grant opportunity, so there
is no financial impact to the City. Further request an exemption from the
indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City Code section 42-18 for a
governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20. Grant funding is not
anticipated to exceed a combined total of $100,000.
Summary
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has issued a Call for Projects for its
Design Assistance Program, which provides funding to develop a project assessment
or feasibility study up to a 15 percent design level on prospective bicycle and/or
pedestrian projects. The goals of eligible projects under the Design Assistance
Program should be focused on improving the quality of life, completing a regional
shared use path and/or canal network, improving bicycle and pedestrian access to
transit, or providing safety improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If funding
is awarded for a City project, Street Transportation staff will select a consultant from
MAG's approved on-call list, and MAG will enter into a contract for consulting services
with the consultant and manage the contract. Street Transportation staff will interact
with MAG staff and the consultant to develop the project assessment or study for the
project.
For Fiscal Year 2022, there is $500,000 available through MAG's Design Assistance
Program, and applications are due by July 30, 2021. Projects will be competitively
scored and evaluated based on their individual merits.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund, as a local agency match is not required for
this grant opportunity.
Page 288
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 289
Report
through Maricopa Association of Governments (Ordinance S-47791)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and if
awarded, enter into agreements, if necessary, for transportation funding through the
Maricopa Association of Governments Design Assistance Program. The Street
Transportation Department is requesting to apply for a Design Assistance Program
grant submittal. A local agency match is not required for this grant opportunity, so there
is no financial impact to the City. Further request an exemption from the
indemnification prohibition set forth in the Phoenix City Code section 42-18 for a
governmental entity pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-20. Grant funding is not
anticipated to exceed a combined total of $100,000.
Summary
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) has issued a Call for Projects for its
Design Assistance Program, which provides funding to develop a project assessment
or feasibility study up to a 15 percent design level on prospective bicycle and/or
pedestrian projects. The goals of eligible projects under the Design Assistance
Program should be focused on improving the quality of life, completing a regional
shared use path and/or canal network, improving bicycle and pedestrian access to
transit, or providing safety improvements for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. If funding
is awarded for a City project, Street Transportation staff will select a consultant from
MAG's approved on-call list, and MAG will enter into a contract for consulting services
with the consultant and manage the contract. Street Transportation staff will interact
with MAG staff and the consultant to develop the project assessment or study for the
project.
For Fiscal Year 2022, there is $500,000 available through MAG's Design Assistance
Program, and applications are due by July 30, 2021. Projects will be competitively
scored and evaluated based on their individual merits.
Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund, as a local agency match is not required for
this grant opportunity.
Page 288
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 289
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Apply for Federal Funding for U.S. Department of Transportation Federal
Railroad Administration Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements Program (Ordinance S-47802)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and if
awarded, enter into agreements for disbursement of U.S. Department of
Transportation federal railroad funding for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements Program grant opportunity. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. If
awarded, the City would receive grant funding for an amount not to exceed $10 million
and provide matching funds in an amount not to exceed $3 million.
Summary
The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program offers
an opportunity to leverage local funds for transportation projects under the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. Funds for the grant are to be awarded on a
competitive basis. The Street Transportation Department anticipates the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration to issue a Notice of
Funding Opportunity in late June for a CRISI grant award for fiscal year (FY) 2021.
The amount of available funding is unknown at this time, but the available funding for
FY 2020 was $320,637,948.
The U.S. railway network is central to the success of the American economy, carrying
more than 1.8 billion tons of freight valued at over $830 million annually, and over 32.5
million passengers on intercity rail services. A strong transportation network is critical
to the function and growth of the American economy. Congress authorized this grant
program for the Secretary of Transportation to invest in a wide range of projects within
the United States to improve railroad safety, efficiency and reliability, mitigate
congestion, enhance multi-modal connections and lead to new or substantially
improved railway corridors.
Street Transportation Department staff is collaborating on a CRISI grant submittal that
will outline critical improvements on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
crossings along 19th Avenue and McDowell Road as well as 43rd Avenue and
Camelback Road. These regional freight corridors will benefit from safety and
Page 290
efficiency improvements. BNSF is in full support of the CRISI grant submittal for the
above-mentioned locations and has been a partner to the recommended preliminary
engineering efforts to date at both locations.
The City's local match would be a minimum of 20 percent, which would be $2 million of
the total project design and construction cost if the maximum award is requested and
awarded. However, to be competitive at a national level for the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety improvements Program grant, it is not uncommon for local
matches to be up to 30 percent, or up to $3 million, if the maximum award is requested
and awarded.
Financial Impact
If selected, the CRISI grant will fund up to 80 percent of the total design and
construction costs for proposed improvements. The Street Transportation Department
intends to submit a grant application for up to $10 million that includes design,
environmental, soft costs and construction costs related to the project. Staff
recommends the City provide a competitive 30 percent total project cost match, up to
$3 million, which is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget.
Location
19th Avenue and McDowell Road
43rd Avenue and Camelback Road
Council Districts: 4, 5 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 291
Report
Railroad Administration Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety
Improvements Program (Ordinance S-47802)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for, accept, and if
awarded, enter into agreements for disbursement of U.S. Department of
Transportation federal railroad funding for the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and
Safety Improvements Program grant opportunity. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. If
awarded, the City would receive grant funding for an amount not to exceed $10 million
and provide matching funds in an amount not to exceed $3 million.
Summary
The Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) Program offers
an opportunity to leverage local funds for transportation projects under the Further
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020. Funds for the grant are to be awarded on a
competitive basis. The Street Transportation Department anticipates the U.S.
Department of Transportation Federal Railroad Administration to issue a Notice of
Funding Opportunity in late June for a CRISI grant award for fiscal year (FY) 2021.
The amount of available funding is unknown at this time, but the available funding for
FY 2020 was $320,637,948.
The U.S. railway network is central to the success of the American economy, carrying
more than 1.8 billion tons of freight valued at over $830 million annually, and over 32.5
million passengers on intercity rail services. A strong transportation network is critical
to the function and growth of the American economy. Congress authorized this grant
program for the Secretary of Transportation to invest in a wide range of projects within
the United States to improve railroad safety, efficiency and reliability, mitigate
congestion, enhance multi-modal connections and lead to new or substantially
improved railway corridors.
Street Transportation Department staff is collaborating on a CRISI grant submittal that
will outline critical improvements on the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway
crossings along 19th Avenue and McDowell Road as well as 43rd Avenue and
Camelback Road. These regional freight corridors will benefit from safety and
Page 290
efficiency improvements. BNSF is in full support of the CRISI grant submittal for the
above-mentioned locations and has been a partner to the recommended preliminary
engineering efforts to date at both locations.
The City's local match would be a minimum of 20 percent, which would be $2 million of
the total project design and construction cost if the maximum award is requested and
awarded. However, to be competitive at a national level for the Consolidated Rail
Infrastructure and Safety improvements Program grant, it is not uncommon for local
matches to be up to 30 percent, or up to $3 million, if the maximum award is requested
and awarded.
Financial Impact
If selected, the CRISI grant will fund up to 80 percent of the total design and
construction costs for proposed improvements. The Street Transportation Department
intends to submit a grant application for up to $10 million that includes design,
environmental, soft costs and construction costs related to the project. Staff
recommends the City provide a competitive 30 percent total project cost match, up to
$3 million, which is available in the Street Transportation Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget.
Location
19th Avenue and McDowell Road
43rd Avenue and Camelback Road
Council Districts: 4, 5 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 291
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe for
Railroad Crossings at 27th Avenue and Thomas Road (Ordinance S-47811)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Grade
Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad to perform work in the easement to upgrade the railroad crossings at 27th
Avenue and Thomas Road. Further request the City Council to grant an exception to
Phoenix City Code section 42-18 and to authorize indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code section 42-
18. The Agreement's indemnification and assumption of liability provisions require the
City to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
from any and all claims with minimal limitations. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
will only assume liability for claims that are proximately caused by its intentional
misconduct or gross negligence. There is no financial impact associated with this
Agreement.
Summary
The railroad crossings at the 27th Avenue and Thomas Road intersection are two of
the highest railroad collision locations in the nation. For that reason, completing this
project is critical to the City, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the Arizona Corporation
Commission.
On April 6, 2016, the Street Transportation Department received Council approval to
enter into Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 142483 with ADOT for safety
improvements at two BNSF railroad crossings at the 27th Avenue and Thomas Road
intersections. The project design includes safety improvements such as gates,
cantilevers and flashers; roadway widening; and modifying raised medians and will
require work to be performed in the easement belonging to BNSF. The Grade Crossing
Construction and Maintenance Agreement is needed to allow work to be performed
within the BNSF easement.
Contract Term
Unless otherwise lawfully terminated by the Parties, the Agreement expires upon
completion and acceptance of the project and fulfillment of all terms of the Agreement.
Page 292
Financial Impact
No financial impact is associated with this agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved IGA 142483 with ADOT for Safety Improvements (S-42430)
on April 6, 2016.
Location
27th Avenue and Thomas Road
Council Districts: 4 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 293
Report
Railroad Crossings at 27th Avenue and Thomas Road (Ordinance S-47811)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Grade
Crossing Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Burlington Northern Santa Fe
Railroad to perform work in the easement to upgrade the railroad crossings at 27th
Avenue and Thomas Road. Further request the City Council to grant an exception to
Phoenix City Code section 42-18 and to authorize indemnification and assumption of
liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City Code section 42-
18. The Agreement's indemnification and assumption of liability provisions require the
City to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
from any and all claims with minimal limitations. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad
will only assume liability for claims that are proximately caused by its intentional
misconduct or gross negligence. There is no financial impact associated with this
Agreement.
Summary
The railroad crossings at the 27th Avenue and Thomas Road intersection are two of
the highest railroad collision locations in the nation. For that reason, completing this
project is critical to the City, the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), the
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad (BNSF) and the Arizona Corporation
Commission.
On April 6, 2016, the Street Transportation Department received Council approval to
enter into Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) 142483 with ADOT for safety
improvements at two BNSF railroad crossings at the 27th Avenue and Thomas Road
intersections. The project design includes safety improvements such as gates,
cantilevers and flashers; roadway widening; and modifying raised medians and will
require work to be performed in the easement belonging to BNSF. The Grade Crossing
Construction and Maintenance Agreement is needed to allow work to be performed
within the BNSF easement.
Contract Term
Unless otherwise lawfully terminated by the Parties, the Agreement expires upon
completion and acceptance of the project and fulfillment of all terms of the Agreement.
Page 292
Financial Impact
No financial impact is associated with this agreement.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved IGA 142483 with ADOT for Safety Improvements (S-42430)
on April 6, 2016.
Location
27th Avenue and Thomas Road
Council Districts: 4 and 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 293
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
24th Street Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2021 - Engineering Services -
WS85290032 (Ordinance S-47775)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include design and
construction administration and inspection services for the 24th Street Water
Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2021 project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total fee for services will not exceed $7.6 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate raw water valves, flow meters,
miscellaneous electrical instrumentation and controls, sedimentation weir plates,
pumps, chemical feeds and piping, solids handling and backwash mechanisms,
transformers, generators and various raw water pump station and chemical building
items.
Carollo Engineers, Inc.'s design services include, but are not limited to: design,
facilitation of meetings and workshops, coordination of utility agencies, development of
cost estimates, review of the permit requirements associated with the scope of work,
coordination with other ongoing site projects, and review of the 2018 rehabilitation plan
items versus current needs. Construction administration and inspection services
Page 294
include, but are not limited to: coordination with the contractor on site during
construction; administration of the construction schedule, shop drawings and submittal
review process, as well as payment applications, inspection of all construction
activities, review and approval of change orders, witnessing factory testing,
commissioning services, and warranty inspections.
This agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 3: GHD Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is four years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Carollo Engineers, Inc. will not exceed $7.6 million, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Page 295
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 296
Report
WS85290032 (Ordinance S-47775)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Carollo Engineers, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include design and
construction administration and inspection services for the 24th Street Water
Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2021 project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total fee for services will not exceed $7.6 million.
Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services related to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate raw water valves, flow meters,
miscellaneous electrical instrumentation and controls, sedimentation weir plates,
pumps, chemical feeds and piping, solids handling and backwash mechanisms,
transformers, generators and various raw water pump station and chemical building
items.
Carollo Engineers, Inc.'s design services include, but are not limited to: design,
facilitation of meetings and workshops, coordination of utility agencies, development of
cost estimates, review of the permit requirements associated with the scope of work,
coordination with other ongoing site projects, and review of the 2018 rehabilitation plan
items versus current needs. Construction administration and inspection services
Page 294
include, but are not limited to: coordination with the contractor on site during
construction; administration of the construction schedule, shop drawings and submittal
review process, as well as payment applications, inspection of all construction
activities, review and approval of change orders, witnessing factory testing,
commissioning services, and warranty inspections.
This agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below:
Selected Firm
Rank 1: Carollo Engineers, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 3: GHD Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is four years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Carollo Engineers, Inc. will not exceed $7.6 million, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Page 295
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 296
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
24th Street Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2021 - Construction Manager at
Risk Preconstruction and Construction Services - WS85290032 (Ordinance S-
47776)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
and Construction Services for the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation
2021 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services
will not exceed $300,000.
Summary
The 24th Street Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment facility with
the capacity to treat 140 million gallons per day of Salt River Project water with various
operations and processes. It was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and received
various upgrades from 1990 to 2000. A condition assessment prioritized various
treatment systems in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement. The purpose of this
project is to address the repair or replacement of raw water pump station valves, flow
meters, flocculation basin inlet channel hydraulic modifications, gates and probes,
sedimentation basin weir plate, filter effluent pipes, meters, chemical feed area piping,
chemical and maintenance building minor repairs, solids handling backwash
equalization basin pumps, sludge blanket monitoring, backwash clarifier mechanism,
various electrical equipment such as transformers, standby generators, electrical
panels and modifications at the administration building area, electrical building, and
chemical building.
PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. PCL will assume the risk of delivering the
project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) agreement. A Small Business
Enterprise (SBE) goal will be established for this project during preconstruction
services and reviewed prior to the start of construction.
PCL will then transition to preparation of a GMP proposal for the construction services
provided under the agreement, and participate with the City's SBE program. PCL will
Page 297
be responsible for construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling
the SBE program requirements. PCL will be required to solicit bids from pre-qualified
subcontractors and to perform the work using the City's subcontractor selection
process. PCL may also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
PCL's services for both preconstruction and construction services include, but are not
limited to: design and constructability reviews, providing detailed cost estimates and
knowledge of marketplace conditions, provide project planning and scheduling,
preparing a GMP proposal, provide for construction phasing and scheduling that will
minimize interruption and to City operations and to provide alternate systems
evaluation.
This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: PCL Construction, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 3: J.R. Filanc Construction Company, Inc.
Rank 4: Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.
Rank 5: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 18 months from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for PCL Construction, Inc. will not exceed $300,000, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Page 298
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 299
Report
Risk Preconstruction and Construction Services - WS85290032 (Ordinance S-
47776)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
and Construction Services for the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant Rehabilitation
2021 project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement
as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below,
and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services
will not exceed $300,000.
Summary
The 24th Street Water Treatment Plant is a conventional water treatment facility with
the capacity to treat 140 million gallons per day of Salt River Project water with various
operations and processes. It was constructed in the 1950s and 1960s, and received
various upgrades from 1990 to 2000. A condition assessment prioritized various
treatment systems in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement. The purpose of this
project is to address the repair or replacement of raw water pump station valves, flow
meters, flocculation basin inlet channel hydraulic modifications, gates and probes,
sedimentation basin weir plate, filter effluent pipes, meters, chemical feed area piping,
chemical and maintenance building minor repairs, solids handling backwash
equalization basin pumps, sludge blanket monitoring, backwash clarifier mechanism,
various electrical equipment such as transformers, standby generators, electrical
panels and modifications at the administration building area, electrical building, and
chemical building.
PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. PCL will assume the risk of delivering the
project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) agreement. A Small Business
Enterprise (SBE) goal will be established for this project during preconstruction
services and reviewed prior to the start of construction.
PCL will then transition to preparation of a GMP proposal for the construction services
provided under the agreement, and participate with the City's SBE program. PCL will
Page 297
be responsible for construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling
the SBE program requirements. PCL will be required to solicit bids from pre-qualified
subcontractors and to perform the work using the City's subcontractor selection
process. PCL may also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
PCL's services for both preconstruction and construction services include, but are not
limited to: design and constructability reviews, providing detailed cost estimates and
knowledge of marketplace conditions, provide project planning and scheduling,
preparing a GMP proposal, provide for construction phasing and scheduling that will
minimize interruption and to City operations and to provide alternate systems
evaluation.
This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
operations for the City.
Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.
Selected Firm
Rank 1: PCL Construction, Inc.
Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 3: J.R. Filanc Construction Company, Inc.
Rank 4: Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.
Rank 5: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 18 months from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
The agreement value for PCL Construction, Inc. will not exceed $300,000, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.
Page 298
Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve
funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up
to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the
agreement termination.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 299
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Predictive Maintenance Vibration Analysis Program Agreement - Amendment
(Ordinance S-47778)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148121 with Caltrol, Inc. to provide additional funding. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $150,000.
Summary
This amendment is necessary to perform work at the 23rd Avenue Wastewater
Treatment Plant to mirror work performed at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Caltrol, Inc. is responsible for collecting data, providing vibration analysis and
interpretation services, as well as reporting for various types of machinery for the
Water Services Department Water Treatment Plants (WTP) and Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTP), with initial analyses performed at the 91st Avenue WWTP. The next
phase of the program will include the 23rd Avenue WWTP.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Predictive Maintenance Vibration Analysis Program
Agreement 148121 was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $150,000. This amendment
will increase the authorization by an additional $150,000, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $300,000.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's operating
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Predictive Maintenance Vibration Analysis Program
Agreement 148121 (Ordinance S-44872) on July 5, 2018.
Location
23rd Avenue WWTP
Council District: 7
Page 300
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 301
Report
(Ordinance S-47778)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 148121 with Caltrol, Inc. to provide additional funding. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $150,000.
Summary
This amendment is necessary to perform work at the 23rd Avenue Wastewater
Treatment Plant to mirror work performed at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
Caltrol, Inc. is responsible for collecting data, providing vibration analysis and
interpretation services, as well as reporting for various types of machinery for the
Water Services Department Water Treatment Plants (WTP) and Wastewater Treatment
Plants (WWTP), with initial analyses performed at the 91st Avenue WWTP. The next
phase of the program will include the 23rd Avenue WWTP.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Predictive Maintenance Vibration Analysis Program
Agreement 148121 was for an expenditure not-to-exceed $150,000. This amendment
will increase the authorization by an additional $150,000, for a new total not-to-exceed
agreement value of $300,000.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's operating
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Predictive Maintenance Vibration Analysis Program
Agreement 148121 (Ordinance S-44872) on July 5, 2018.
Location
23rd Avenue WWTP
Council District: 7
Page 300
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 301
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Boiler Maintenance and Repair Services Agreement - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-47780)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler, to provide boiler maintenance and
repair services for the purpose of keeping boiler equipment clean and properly
maintained for compliance with operational standards. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement will not exceed
$2,634,999.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide boiler maintenance and repair services for
high-pressure steam boilers, pressure vessels, storage vessels and hydronic systems.
Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler’s services include, but are not limited to:
inspections, replacement of parts on an as-needed basis, checking controls and
alarms for proper operation, tuning the combustion to proper emission, cleaning the
stub and stack, facing all joints and cracks with high temperature bonding mortar,
tuning burners, providing a back-up boiler if needed, and training to City employees.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids and are listed below, and all bids were found to be
responsive and responsible.
Selected Bidder:
Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler: $106,487.50
Other Bidder:
Arizona Boiler Co.: $182,481
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2021, for a six-year term.
Page 302
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler will not exceed
$2,634,999.
Funding is available in the Water Services, Public Works, and Phoenix Convention
Center Departments' operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Inger Erickson, and
the Water Services, Public Works and Phoenix Convention Center departments.
Page 303
Report
(Ordinance S-47780)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler, to provide boiler maintenance and
repair services for the purpose of keeping boiler equipment clean and properly
maintained for compliance with operational standards. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement will not exceed
$2,634,999.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide boiler maintenance and repair services for
high-pressure steam boilers, pressure vessels, storage vessels and hydronic systems.
Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler’s services include, but are not limited to:
inspections, replacement of parts on an as-needed basis, checking controls and
alarms for proper operation, tuning the combustion to proper emission, cleaning the
stub and stack, facing all joints and cracks with high temperature bonding mortar,
tuning burners, providing a back-up boiler if needed, and training to City employees.
Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two vendors submitted bids and are listed below, and all bids were found to be
responsive and responsible.
Selected Bidder:
Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler: $106,487.50
Other Bidder:
Arizona Boiler Co.: $182,481
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Oct. 1, 2021, for a six-year term.
Page 302
Financial Impact
The agreement value for Patriot Mechanical, LLC dba Patriot Boiler will not exceed
$2,634,999.
Funding is available in the Water Services, Public Works, and Phoenix Convention
Center Departments' operating budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Inger Erickson, and
the Water Services, Public Works and Phoenix Convention Center departments.
Page 303
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
OnBase Document Management System Upgrade Agreement - Request for
Award (Ordinance S-47785)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Databank IMX, Inc. for OnBase document management software upgrade and
database migration services. Further request to authorize for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement will not exceed $500,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to fulfill the Water Services Department's technology
services requirement for an OnBase software upgrade and data migration services
away from the current system, LibertyNet. The OnBase records management software
is used to house records and track them for disposal in compliance with records
retention schedules for the State, Maricopa County, City and Department.
Direct selection is necessary to upgrade this critical software to stay in compliance with
regulatory agency requirements. Additionally, it is critical to manage our records to
meet public records requests and other operational needs.
Databank IMX, Inc. services include, but are not limited to: records management
software configuration; personal services for data migration; training; and annual
maintenance.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the Contractor as
set forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because the supplier has access to a patent, copyright or other legal right which
identifies the supplier as a sole provider.
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021 for a five-year term.
Page 304
Financial Impact
The aggregate value for Databank IMX, Inc. will not exceed $500,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 305
Report
Award (Ordinance S-47785)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Databank IMX, Inc. for OnBase document management software upgrade and
database migration services. Further request to authorize for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The agreement will not exceed $500,000.
Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to fulfill the Water Services Department's technology
services requirement for an OnBase software upgrade and data migration services
away from the current system, LibertyNet. The OnBase records management software
is used to house records and track them for disposal in compliance with records
retention schedules for the State, Maricopa County, City and Department.
Direct selection is necessary to upgrade this critical software to stay in compliance with
regulatory agency requirements. Additionally, it is critical to manage our records to
meet public records requests and other operational needs.
Databank IMX, Inc. services include, but are not limited to: records management
software configuration; personal services for data migration; training; and annual
maintenance.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined to select the Contractor as
set forth in City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. A direct selection was made
because the supplier has access to a patent, copyright or other legal right which
identifies the supplier as a sole provider.
Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Aug. 1, 2021 for a five-year term.
Page 304
Financial Impact
The aggregate value for Databank IMX, Inc. will not exceed $500,000.
Funding is available in the Water Services Department’s Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budgets.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 305
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Zone 3D and 4A Improvements Program: Water Treatment Plant Booster Pump
Stations - Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Amendment -
WS85100047, WS85110008 and WS85290030 (Ordinance S-47787)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152398 with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide additional construction
services for the Zone 3D and 4A Improvements Program - Water Treatment Plant
Booster Pump Stations Construction Manager at Risk project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services included in this
amendment will not exceed $13 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Phoenix to provide reliable water
supplies in north Phoenix in the event there are restrictions placed on Colorado River
water delivered through the Central Arizona Project. This amendment is necessary for
PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) to provide additional services to centralize the power
distribution to the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant to be consistent with the
centralized power distribution systems at the Deer Valley, Union Hills, and Val Vista
Water Treatment Plants. This amendment will provide additional funds and time to the
agreement.
PCL's additional services include, but are not limited to: constructing a new 15kV
Unified Electrical Building at the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant with new electrical
switchgear inside the building and new power distribution ductbanks throughout the
plant site, scheduling and managing site operations, addressing all federal, state and
local permitting requirements, arranging for procurement of materials and equipment,
and maintaining a safe work site for all project participants. PCL will be responsible for
construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the Small
Business Enterprise program requirements. PCL will be required to solicit bids from
pre-qualified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s subcontractor
selection process. PCL may also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
Page 306
operations for the City.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services was
approved for an amount not-to-exceed $35.7 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $13 million, for a new
total not-to-exceed agreement value of $48.7 million, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Preconstruction Services Agreement 148950 (Ordinance S-45170) on Dec. 5, 2018;
and
· Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Agreement 152398 (Ordinance
S-46718) on June 17, 2020.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 307
Report
Stations - Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Amendment -
WS85100047, WS85110008 and WS85290030 (Ordinance S-47787)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152398 with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide additional construction
services for the Zone 3D and 4A Improvements Program - Water Treatment Plant
Booster Pump Stations Construction Manager at Risk project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services included in this
amendment will not exceed $13 million.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Phoenix to provide reliable water
supplies in north Phoenix in the event there are restrictions placed on Colorado River
water delivered through the Central Arizona Project. This amendment is necessary for
PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) to provide additional services to centralize the power
distribution to the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant to be consistent with the
centralized power distribution systems at the Deer Valley, Union Hills, and Val Vista
Water Treatment Plants. This amendment will provide additional funds and time to the
agreement.
PCL's additional services include, but are not limited to: constructing a new 15kV
Unified Electrical Building at the 24th Street Water Treatment Plant with new electrical
switchgear inside the building and new power distribution ductbanks throughout the
plant site, scheduling and managing site operations, addressing all federal, state and
local permitting requirements, arranging for procurement of materials and equipment,
and maintaining a safe work site for all project participants. PCL will be responsible for
construction means and methods related to the project and fulfilling the Small
Business Enterprise program requirements. PCL will be required to solicit bids from
pre-qualified subcontractors and to perform the work using the City’s subcontractor
selection process. PCL may also compete to self-perform limited amounts of work.
This Agreement is essential to the health, safety, and welfare of the public and critical
Page 306
operations for the City.
Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment is two years from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services was
approved for an amount not-to-exceed $35.7 million, including all subconsultant and
reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $13 million, for a new
total not-to-exceed agreement value of $48.7 million, including all subcontractor and
reimbursable costs.
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Preconstruction Services Agreement 148950 (Ordinance S-45170) on Dec. 5, 2018;
and
· Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Agreement 152398 (Ordinance
S-46718) on June 17, 2020.
Location
24th Street Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 307
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Agreement with Salt River Project and Others to Share Costs Associated with
Pilot Study to Operate Flood Control Space at Modified Roosevelt Dam
(Ordinance S-47810)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association and Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District and others (Parties) to share the costs of obtaining
approval and conducting a temporary deviation of the dam operating rules to allow the
Parties to extend the time water can be retained in the Flood Control Space of
Modified Roosevelt Dam, making that water more available to the Parties. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Phoenix’s share of the cost will be proportional to Phoenix’s allotted share of the
temporary deviation water in the Flood Control Space, which amount will not exceed
$276,150.
Summary
SRP will seek approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to authorize Salt River Project (SRP)
to operate the flood control space in the Modified Roosevelt Dam (FCS) under a
Temporary Deviation Plan. Under the Temporary Deviation Plan, SRP may retain spill
water in the FCS for up to 120 days and deliver it proportionately to the parties to this
Agreement. Under the Agreement, Phoenix will receive an 18 percent share of the
available FCS, which represents up to 20,000 acre-feet of water from the Salt River.
The Temporary Deviation will operate as a pilot for five years during which time SRP
can retain the spill water once a year for a maximum of three years during the total five
-year period.
SRP estimates it will cost $1,211,549 for SRP to complete the work necessary to seek
and obtain approval and authorization for the Temporary Deviation Plan. An additional
20 percent contingency has been added to this amount. These costs include planning
costs, technical evaluation and environmental and cultural resources compliance.
Phoenix’s cost share is proportional to the volume of water it will receive (18 percent of
total FCS capacity), or a maximum of $276,150. Other parties participating in this
Agreement are: the cities of Avondale, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale
and Tempe; the Town of Gilbert; Roosevelt Water Conservation District; Buckeye
Page 308
Water Conservation and Drainage District; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community; Roosevelt Irrigation District; and Freeport Minerals Corporation.
Contract Term
The Agreement will terminate when a Temporary Deviation Plan is approved by the
Corps and BOR and when the last funds are transferred from the other Parties to SRP.
In the event the Corps and BOR do not approve the Temporary Deviation Plan, the
Parties may terminate the Cost Share Agreement.
Financial Impact
The value of the Agreement is not to exceed $276,150.
Funding for this agreement is available in the Water Services Department’s Capital
Improvement Budget.
Location
Roosevelt Dam
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 309
Report
Pilot Study to Operate Flood Control Space at Modified Roosevelt Dam
(Ordinance S-47810)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Salt River Valley Water Users’ Association and Salt River Project Agricultural
Improvement and Power District and others (Parties) to share the costs of obtaining
approval and conducting a temporary deviation of the dam operating rules to allow the
Parties to extend the time water can be retained in the Flood Control Space of
Modified Roosevelt Dam, making that water more available to the Parties. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
Phoenix’s share of the cost will be proportional to Phoenix’s allotted share of the
temporary deviation water in the Flood Control Space, which amount will not exceed
$276,150.
Summary
SRP will seek approval from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and
the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to authorize Salt River Project (SRP)
to operate the flood control space in the Modified Roosevelt Dam (FCS) under a
Temporary Deviation Plan. Under the Temporary Deviation Plan, SRP may retain spill
water in the FCS for up to 120 days and deliver it proportionately to the parties to this
Agreement. Under the Agreement, Phoenix will receive an 18 percent share of the
available FCS, which represents up to 20,000 acre-feet of water from the Salt River.
The Temporary Deviation will operate as a pilot for five years during which time SRP
can retain the spill water once a year for a maximum of three years during the total five
-year period.
SRP estimates it will cost $1,211,549 for SRP to complete the work necessary to seek
and obtain approval and authorization for the Temporary Deviation Plan. An additional
20 percent contingency has been added to this amount. These costs include planning
costs, technical evaluation and environmental and cultural resources compliance.
Phoenix’s cost share is proportional to the volume of water it will receive (18 percent of
total FCS capacity), or a maximum of $276,150. Other parties participating in this
Agreement are: the cities of Avondale, Chandler, Glendale, Mesa, Peoria, Scottsdale
and Tempe; the Town of Gilbert; Roosevelt Water Conservation District; Buckeye
Page 308
Water Conservation and Drainage District; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community; Roosevelt Irrigation District; and Freeport Minerals Corporation.
Contract Term
The Agreement will terminate when a Temporary Deviation Plan is approved by the
Corps and BOR and when the last funds are transferred from the other Parties to SRP.
In the event the Corps and BOR do not approve the Temporary Deviation Plan, the
Parties may terminate the Cost Share Agreement.
Financial Impact
The value of the Agreement is not to exceed $276,150.
Funding for this agreement is available in the Water Services Department’s Capital
Improvement Budget.
Location
Roosevelt Dam
Council District: Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 309
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Bell 17 - PLAT 190070 - Northwest Corner of Grandview Road and
19th Avenue
Plat: 190070
Project: 18-1329
Name of Plat: Bell 17
Owner: Sunbelt Land Holdings, LP
Engineer: James Brucci
Request: A 6 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: June 9, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat need to record concurrently with Abandonment 190076, 190090, and
200504. The sequence of recording is as follows: the resolutions of abandonment shall
be recorded first, and the plat second.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of Grandview Road and 19th Avenue
Council District: 3
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 310
Report
19th Avenue
Plat: 190070
Project: 18-1329
Name of Plat: Bell 17
Owner: Sunbelt Land Holdings, LP
Engineer: James Brucci
Request: A 6 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: June 9, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat need to record concurrently with Abandonment 190076, 190090, and
200504. The sequence of recording is as follows: the resolutions of abandonment shall
be recorded first, and the plat second.
Location
Generally located at northwest corner of Grandview Road and 19th Avenue
Council District: 3
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 310
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Royal Palms - PLAT 200580 - 7550 N. 15th Avenue
Plat: 200580
Project: 19-3562
Name of Plat: Royal Palms
Owner(s): Dora K. Perry Family Trust/ Berry 14 LLC
Engineer: Joshua Moyses
Request: A 11 Lot Residential/Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: June 3, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 7550 N. 15th Avenue
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 311
Report
Plat: 200580
Project: 19-3562
Name of Plat: Royal Palms
Owner(s): Dora K. Perry Family Trust/ Berry 14 LLC
Engineer: Joshua Moyses
Request: A 11 Lot Residential/Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: June 3, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at 7550 N. 15th Avenue
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 311
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - FRIER - PLAT 200636 - Northeast Corner of 3rd Avenue and Frier
Drive
Plat: 200636
Project: 20-3174
Name of Plat: FRIER
Owner: D.R. Horton, Inc. A Delaware Corporation
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict
Request: A 2 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 27, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Frier Drive
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 312
Report
Drive
Plat: 200636
Project: 20-3174
Name of Plat: FRIER
Owner: D.R. Horton, Inc. A Delaware Corporation
Engineer: Brian J. Benedict
Request: A 2 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 27, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of 3rd Avenue and Frier Drive
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 312
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Ocotillo and 7th Street - PLAT 210018 - Southeast Corner of 7th
Street and Ocotillo Road
Plat: 210018
Project: 19-4263
Name of Plat: Ocotillo and 7th St
Owner: Rule Transfer AZ, Inc.
Engineer: Mike F. Jennings
Request: A 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 20, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the Southeast corner of 7th Street and Ocotillo Road
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 313
Report
Street and Ocotillo Road
Plat: 210018
Project: 19-4263
Name of Plat: Ocotillo and 7th St
Owner: Rule Transfer AZ, Inc.
Engineer: Mike F. Jennings
Request: A 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 20, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the Southeast corner of 7th Street and Ocotillo Road
Council District: 6
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 313
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - The Collective Storage - PLAT 200573 - Southwest Corner of Baseline
Road and 67th Avenue
Plat: 200573
Project: 19-1626
Name of Plat: The Collective Storage
Owner(s): Clear Sky Capital Laveen Self Storage, LP
Engineer(s): Joseph C. McGill, RLS
Request: A 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 20, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Baseline Road and 67th Avenue
(Meadows Loop East).
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 314
Report
Road and 67th Avenue
Plat: 200573
Project: 19-1626
Name of Plat: The Collective Storage
Owner(s): Clear Sky Capital Laveen Self Storage, LP
Engineer(s): Joseph C. McGill, RLS
Request: A 2 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 20, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southwest corner of Baseline Road and 67th Avenue
(Meadows Loop East).
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 314
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Elevate on the Preserve - PLAT 200528 - Southeast Corner of Central
Avenue and Dobbins Road
Plat: 200528
Project: 19-1716
Name of Plat: Elevate on the Preserve
Owner: Alydar Ventures, LLC
Engineer: David S. Kein
Request: A 38 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 24, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Dobbins Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 315
Report
Avenue and Dobbins Road
Plat: 200528
Project: 19-1716
Name of Plat: Elevate on the Preserve
Owner: Alydar Ventures, LLC
Engineer: David S. Kein
Request: A 38 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: May 24, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only.
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Dobbins Road
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 315
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Olen 44th Apartments - PLAT 200569 - 1150 N. 44th St.
Plat: 200569
Project: 06-287
Name of Plat: Olen 44th Apartments
Owner(s): Olen Properties Corp., A Florida Corporation
Engineer(s): Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 15, 2020
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment 200513 and
Abandonment 200569.
Location
Located at 1150 N. 44th St.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 316
Report
Plat: 200569
Project: 06-287
Name of Plat: Olen 44th Apartments
Owner(s): Olen Properties Corp., A Florida Corporation
Engineer(s): Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 15, 2020
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment 200513 and
Abandonment 200569.
Location
Located at 1150 N. 44th St.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 316
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way Easement - V190076A - North 21st Avenue and
Bell Road (Resolution 21942)
Abandonment: V190076A
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: Grant Herneise, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon the right-of-way intersections at 21st Avenue and Bell Road.
Date of Decision/Hearing: January 9, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
North 21st Avenue and Bell Road
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid because the abandonment and plat move the
easements on the land to allow for development of the site.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 317
Report
Bell Road (Resolution 21942)
Abandonment: V190076A
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: Grant Herneise, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon the right-of-way intersections at 21st Avenue and Bell Road.
Date of Decision/Hearing: January 9, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
North 21st Avenue and Bell Road
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid because the abandonment and plat move the
easements on the land to allow for development of the site.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 317
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way Easement - V190090A - 19th and 21st Avenues on
Grandview Road (Resolution 21943)
Abandonment: V190090A
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: Grant Herneise, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon the right-of-way intersections at 19th Avenue and Grandview
Road and 21st Avenue and Grandview Road.
Date of Decision/Hearing: January 23, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
19th and 21st Avenues on Grandview Road
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 318
Report
Grandview Road (Resolution 21943)
Abandonment: V190090A
Project: 18-1329
Applicant: Grant Herneise, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon the right-of-way intersections at 19th Avenue and Grandview
Road and 21st Avenue and Grandview Road.
Date of Decision/Hearing: January 23, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
19th and 21st Avenues on Grandview Road
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 318
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Easements - ABND 200504 - Northwest Corner of Grandview
Road and 19th Avenue (Resolution 21944)
Abandonment: ABND 200504
Project: 14-3002
Applicant: Paul Engle, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon public utility easements, located on Northwest Corner of 19th
Avenue & Grandview Road (208-14-846); Northwest Corner (APN 208-14-827) &
Northeast Corner (208-14-840) of 21st Avenue & Grandview Road; and Southeast
Corner of 21st Avenue & Bell Road (APN 208-14-835).
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 24, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
Northwest Corner of Grandview Road and 19th Avenue
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 319
Report
Road and 19th Avenue (Resolution 21944)
Abandonment: ABND 200504
Project: 14-3002
Applicant: Paul Engle, Hunter Engineering
Request: To abandon public utility easements, located on Northwest Corner of 19th
Avenue & Grandview Road (208-14-846); Northwest Corner (APN 208-14-827) &
Northeast Corner (208-14-840) of 21st Avenue & Grandview Road; and Southeast
Corner of 21st Avenue & Bell Road (APN 208-14-835).
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 24, 2020
Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 190070 are to be recorded together with
the Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of
recording to be followed is that the resolution is recorded first, then the plat is recorded
second.
Location
Northwest Corner of Grandview Road and 19th Avenue
Council District: 3
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 319
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - V190060A - 2929 North 3rd Avenue (Resolution
21938)
Abandonment: V190060A
Project: 01-19451
Applicant: Michelle Bach, EAPC
Request: To abandon 25-feet of right-of-way for a new 45-foot right-of-way along 3rd
Avenue. This will match the surrounding right-of-ways that range from 40-45 feet along
Thomas Road and 3rd Avenue.
Date of Decision/Hearing: October 10, 2019
Location
2929 North 3rd Avenue
Council District: 4
Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$167,748.00.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 320
Report
21938)
Abandonment: V190060A
Project: 01-19451
Applicant: Michelle Bach, EAPC
Request: To abandon 25-feet of right-of-way for a new 45-foot right-of-way along 3rd
Avenue. This will match the surrounding right-of-ways that range from 40-45 feet along
Thomas Road and 3rd Avenue.
Date of Decision/Hearing: October 10, 2019
Location
2929 North 3rd Avenue
Council District: 4
Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$167,748.00.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 320
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 210012 - 4413 North 31st Place (Resolution
21936)
Abandonment: 210012
Project: 20-1112
Applicant: Wendy Riddell
Request:To abandon the 1-foot vehicular non-access easement running along the
north side of APN 163-03-129.
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 29, 2021
Location
4413 North 31st Place
Council District: 6
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 321
Report
21936)
Abandonment: 210012
Project: 20-1112
Applicant: Wendy Riddell
Request:To abandon the 1-foot vehicular non-access easement running along the
north side of APN 163-03-129.
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 29, 2021
Location
4413 North 31st Place
Council District: 6
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 321
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Easement - ABND 210014 - 6626 North 67th Avenue (Resolution
21941)
Abandonment: ABND 210014
Project: 20-836
Applicant: David Maldonado-Camou, P.E., Bowman Consulting
Request: The existing drainage easement is not used, and the proposed low-income
family housing project proposes to construct a private retention basin, along with storm
drain systems to provide the required retention of the development.
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 20, 2021
Location
6626 North 67th Avenue
Council District: 7
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid because it is a drainage easement across private
property that will be addressed in a different manner by the property owner concurrent
with development of the parcel.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 322
Report
21941)
Abandonment: ABND 210014
Project: 20-836
Applicant: David Maldonado-Camou, P.E., Bowman Consulting
Request: The existing drainage easement is not used, and the proposed low-income
family housing project proposes to construct a private retention basin, along with storm
drain systems to provide the required retention of the development.
Date of Decision/Hearing: April 20, 2021
Location
6626 North 67th Avenue
Council District: 7
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this easement abandonment,
although filing fees were paid because it is a drainage easement across private
property that will be addressed in a different manner by the property owner concurrent
with development of the parcel.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 322
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way and Easements - ABND 200513 - Southeast
Corner of 40th Street and Portland Street (Resolution 21939)
Abandonment: ABND 200513
Project: 06-287
Applicant: Laure Castillo, Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request:To abandon a portion of 42nd Street adjacent to APN 125-20-059Q, a portion
of 40th Street access road between median and APN 125-20-059B, the 10-foot alley
right-of-way between 40th Street and 42nd Street south of Portland Street, and the 3-
foot Streetlight Easements on the parcels addressed 4033 and 4107 East Portland
Street.
Date of Decision/Hearing: June 4, 2020
Summary
The resolution of this abandonment, the resolution of abandonment for ABND 200556,
and PLAT 200569 are to be recorded together with the Maricopa County recorder on
the same day, at the same time. The sequence of recording to be followed is that the
resolution for ABND 200556 is recorded first, the resolution for ABND 200513 is
recorded second, then PLAT 200569 is recorded last.
Location
Southeast Corner of 40th Street and Portland Street
Council District: 8
Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$2,000.00.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 323
Report
Corner of 40th Street and Portland Street (Resolution 21939)
Abandonment: ABND 200513
Project: 06-287
Applicant: Laure Castillo, Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request:To abandon a portion of 42nd Street adjacent to APN 125-20-059Q, a portion
of 40th Street access road between median and APN 125-20-059B, the 10-foot alley
right-of-way between 40th Street and 42nd Street south of Portland Street, and the 3-
foot Streetlight Easements on the parcels addressed 4033 and 4107 East Portland
Street.
Date of Decision/Hearing: June 4, 2020
Summary
The resolution of this abandonment, the resolution of abandonment for ABND 200556,
and PLAT 200569 are to be recorded together with the Maricopa County recorder on
the same day, at the same time. The sequence of recording to be followed is that the
resolution for ABND 200556 is recorded first, the resolution for ABND 200513 is
recorded second, then PLAT 200569 is recorded last.
Location
Southeast Corner of 40th Street and Portland Street
Council District: 8
Financial Impact
A consideration fee was also collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$2,000.00.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 323
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way and Easements - ABND 200556 - Southeast
Corner of 42nd Street and Portland Street (Resolution 21940)
Abandonment: ABND 200556
Project: 01-20014
Applicant: Laure Castillo, Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request: To abandon a portion of right-of-way and public utility easements; per
Ordinance S-3062.
Date of Decision/Hearing: December 10, 2020
Summary
The resolution of this abandonment and the resolution of abandonment for ABND
200513 are to be recorded together with the Maricopa County recorder on the same
day, at the same time. The sequence of recording to be followed is that this resolution
is recorded first, then ABND 200513 is recorded second. ABND 200513 is tied to
PLAT 200569, and the plat shall be recorded last of the three items.
Location
Southeast Corner of 42nd Street and Portland Street
Council District: 8
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this right-of-way and easement
abandonment, although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 324
Report
Corner of 42nd Street and Portland Street (Resolution 21940)
Abandonment: ABND 200556
Project: 01-20014
Applicant: Laure Castillo, Survey Innovation Group, Inc.
Request: To abandon a portion of right-of-way and public utility easements; per
Ordinance S-3062.
Date of Decision/Hearing: December 10, 2020
Summary
The resolution of this abandonment and the resolution of abandonment for ABND
200513 are to be recorded together with the Maricopa County recorder on the same
day, at the same time. The sequence of recording to be followed is that this resolution
is recorded first, then ABND 200513 is recorded second. ABND 200513 is tied to
PLAT 200569, and the plat shall be recorded last of the three items.
Location
Southeast Corner of 42nd Street and Portland Street
Council District: 8
Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this right-of-way and easement
abandonment, although filing fees were paid.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 324
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-18-21-8 -
Northwest Corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-6874)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-10 BAOD (Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to R-
3A BAOD (Multifamily Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) for an
assisted living facility.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-10 BAOD
Proposed Zoning: R-3A BAOD
Acreage: 5.10
Proposed Use: Assisted living facility (community residence center)
Owner: Demetrios Vlachos, Vlachos Enterprises
Applicant: Vermillion Acquisitions, LLC
Representative: Vermillion Acquisitions, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Northwest corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 960 E. Baseline Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 325
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
AF
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-18-21-8) FROM R1-10 BAOD (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT)
TO R-3A BAOD (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT).
follows:
T ____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
R SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.10-acre site located at the northwest
corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road in a portion of Section 33, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from
D
“R1-10 BAOD” (Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to
“R-3A BAOD” (Multifamily Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 326
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials
and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone,
colored textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a
decorative and aesthetic treatment.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets, shall contain a
minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
c.
AF
material that exhibits quality and durability.
All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies.
2.
T
The standards contained in Section 651.E.1. (BAOD Streetscape Design
Guidelines and Standards) and the approved street cross section shall apply, in
addition to the below enhancements, and as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy shade trees selected from
the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List shall be provided for the required
trees within the applicable area.
R
b.
c.
The detached sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be shaded to a minimum
75 percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
The bus pad along Baseline Road shall be shaded to a minimum of 50
D
3.
d.
percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement
(MUTE) along the north side of Baseline Road, and construct a 10-foot-wide
multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement as indicated in Section 429 of the
50 percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
A minimum 10-foot wide landscape area shall be provided along the east and west
sides of the site, while a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area shall be provided
along the north side of the site, and each developed to the following standards at a
minimum, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, shall be utilized unless otherwise stated.
Page 327
b. Twenty-five percent 1.5-inch caliper, 50 percent 2-inch caliper and 25
percent 3-inch caliper trees shall be utilized.
c. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover,
shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at mature size.
d. Trees along the north side of the site shall be oriented in a manner that
maximizes the shade along the adjacent Western Canal.
e. The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
4.
AF
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
The development shall provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet of active open
space, exclusive of usable outdoor open space required per bed, no less than 20
T
feet in width or 200 square feet in area, along the Western Canal and include the
following amenities and elements at a minimum, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Shaded seating area/s with three benches or seating features and/or
ramadas; One of these benches or seating features shall be located within
close proximity to the Western Canal.
b. Tree orchard and/or community garden area/s of no less than a combined
5.
R 500 square feet that will include a garden tool library and irrigation.
Open space areas shall contain a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover
(shrubs, grasses, or groundcover plants), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
D
6.
7.
Perimeter walls adjacent to a public street and the Western Canal shall be limited
to open view fencing or a combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry
topped by open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
A pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided prior to preliminary site plan
approval to show a system of pedestrian thoroughfares as described below and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting
to the sidewalk along 10th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections
adjacent to vehicular entryways.
Page 328
b. A pathway connecting the site north to south shall be illuminated by
pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5.
c. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
d. Connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) All buildings on site.
(2) All active open space areas.
AF
(3) Adjacent public sidewalks.
(4) Western Canal (one connection minimum from this development).
(5) Bus pad along Baseline Road.
T
8. The primary entryway to the development shall include the following elements, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Landscaped accent areas a minimum of 300 square feet in area on both
sides of the entryway and be planted and maintained with a variety of at
least three plant materials including a series of annuals that will each
maintain a constant bloom throughout the year and 75 percent live cover.
R
b.
c.
Citrus trees arranged in a grid pattern shall be incorporated into the
entrance to the development.
The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
D
9.
d. The entry driveway surface (outside of the right-of-way) shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material,
other than those used to pave the parking surfaces, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Pedestrian paths internal within the site shall be shaded to a minimum of 75
percent using architectural shade and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout
the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by
Planning and Development Department.
Page 329
11. The public sidewalk along 10th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot
wide continuous landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb
and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant shrubs/groundcover designed to grow to a maximum
mature height of 24 inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
c. The detached sidewalk along 10th Street shall be shaded to a minimum 75
percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
d.
AF
The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
T
pedestrian environment.
12. Bicycle infrastructure shall be incorporated as described below and as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
R
b.
Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained
within close proximity to the Western Canal. The bicycle repair station (“fix it
D
13.
station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from
vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall
include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump
affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle repair stand
which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to
the bike.
The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress and egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The Public Transit Department shall retain right-of-way and require construction of
a bus stop pad along westbound Baseline Road west of 10th Street. The bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1262 with
Page 330
a minimum depth of 10 feet, and with the final location to be approved by the
Public Transit Department.
15. The developer shall dedicate a total of 30 feet of right-of-way for the west side of
10th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. Existing irrigation facilities along Baseline Road and 10th Street shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to
identify existing land rights and establish the appropriate process to relocate the
facility. The headwall at the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated outside
of City right-of-way. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
17. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
AF
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.
T
18. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
2220 M of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated September 18, 2020. 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
R
b.
not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of
the Phoenix City Code.
A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review and
D
19.
c.
approval of Floodplain requirements.
If required, the developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.
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.
20. 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.
Page 331
21. 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.
22. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
AF
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
ATTEST: T ________________________________
MAYOR
R
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D ____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 332
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-18-21-8
THAT PART OF FARM UNIT "L" OR THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL RIGHT OF WAY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
WHICH BEARS WEST 709.44 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE WEST 320.86 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
AF
QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 8 MINUTES WEST 662.80 FEET TO THE SOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID WESTERN CANAL;
THENCE NORTH 84 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST 322.38 FEET ALONG SAID
T
CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST
694.82 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER A
DISTANCE OF 709.44 FEET;
R
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET;
D
THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE WHICH
IS 8 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 55 FEET OF THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
WHICH BEARS WEST A
DISTANCE OF 709.44 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 320.86 FEET;
Page 333
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 662.80 FEET
TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL;
THENCE NORTH 84 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 322.38 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST, ALONG A LINE DESIGNATED
HEREIN AS LINE "A", A DISTANCE OF 694.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 55
FEET WITH SAID LINE "A";
AF
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID LINE "A" A
DISTANCE OF 145 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 127 FEET;
T
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH LINE WHICH IS 38
FEET WESTERLY OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
R
D
Page 334
Page 335
Report
Northwest Corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-6874)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-10 BAOD (Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to R-
3A BAOD (Multifamily Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) for an
assisted living facility.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-10 BAOD
Proposed Zoning: R-3A BAOD
Acreage: 5.10
Proposed Use: Assisted living facility (community residence center)
Owner: Demetrios Vlachos, Vlachos Enterprises
Applicant: Vermillion Acquisitions, LLC
Representative: Vermillion Acquisitions, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Northwest corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 960 E. Baseline Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 325
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
AF
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-18-21-8) FROM R1-10 BAOD (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT)
TO R-3A BAOD (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT,
BASELINE AREA OVERLAY DISTRICT).
follows:
T ____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
R SECTION 1. The zoning of a 5.10-acre site located at the northwest
corner of 10th Street and Baseline Road in a portion of Section 33, Township 1 North,
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from
D
“R1-10 BAOD” (Single-Family Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District) to
“R-3A BAOD” (Multifamily Residence District, Baseline Area Overlay District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 326
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials
and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone,
colored textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a
decorative and aesthetic treatment.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets, shall contain a
minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
c.
AF
material that exhibits quality and durability.
All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies.
2.
T
The standards contained in Section 651.E.1. (BAOD Streetscape Design
Guidelines and Standards) and the approved street cross section shall apply, in
addition to the below enhancements, and as approved or modified by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy shade trees selected from
the Baseline Area Master Plan Plant List shall be provided for the required
trees within the applicable area.
R
b.
c.
The detached sidewalk along Baseline Road shall be shaded to a minimum
75 percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
The bus pad along Baseline Road shall be shaded to a minimum of 50
D
3.
d.
percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement
(MUTE) along the north side of Baseline Road, and construct a 10-foot-wide
multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement as indicated in Section 429 of the
50 percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
A minimum 10-foot wide landscape area shall be provided along the east and west
sides of the site, while a minimum 15-foot wide landscape area shall be provided
along the north side of the site, and each developed to the following standards at a
minimum, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, shall be utilized unless otherwise stated.
Page 327
b. Twenty-five percent 1.5-inch caliper, 50 percent 2-inch caliper and 25
percent 3-inch caliper trees shall be utilized.
c. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover,
shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at mature size.
d. Trees along the north side of the site shall be oriented in a manner that
maximizes the shade along the adjacent Western Canal.
e. The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
4.
AF
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
The development shall provide a minimum of 5,000 square feet of active open
space, exclusive of usable outdoor open space required per bed, no less than 20
T
feet in width or 200 square feet in area, along the Western Canal and include the
following amenities and elements at a minimum, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Shaded seating area/s with three benches or seating features and/or
ramadas; One of these benches or seating features shall be located within
close proximity to the Western Canal.
b. Tree orchard and/or community garden area/s of no less than a combined
5.
R 500 square feet that will include a garden tool library and irrigation.
Open space areas shall contain a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover
(shrubs, grasses, or groundcover plants), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
D
6.
7.
Perimeter walls adjacent to a public street and the Western Canal shall be limited
to open view fencing or a combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry
topped by open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
A pedestrian circulation plan shall be provided prior to preliminary site plan
approval to show a system of pedestrian thoroughfares as described below and as
approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting
to the sidewalk along 10th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections
adjacent to vehicular entryways.
Page 328
b. A pathway connecting the site north to south shall be illuminated by
pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5.
c. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
d. Connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) All buildings on site.
(2) All active open space areas.
AF
(3) Adjacent public sidewalks.
(4) Western Canal (one connection minimum from this development).
(5) Bus pad along Baseline Road.
T
8. The primary entryway to the development shall include the following elements, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Landscaped accent areas a minimum of 300 square feet in area on both
sides of the entryway and be planted and maintained with a variety of at
least three plant materials including a series of annuals that will each
maintain a constant bloom throughout the year and 75 percent live cover.
R
b.
c.
Citrus trees arranged in a grid pattern shall be incorporated into the
entrance to the development.
The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
D
9.
d. The entry driveway surface (outside of the right-of-way) shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material,
other than those used to pave the parking surfaces, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Pedestrian paths internal within the site shall be shaded to a minimum of 75
percent using architectural shade and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout
the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by
Planning and Development Department.
Page 329
11. The public sidewalk along 10th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot
wide continuous landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb
and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings.
b. Drought tolerant shrubs/groundcover designed to grow to a maximum
mature height of 24 inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
c. The detached sidewalk along 10th Street shall be shaded to a minimum 75
percent by vegetative shade at maturity.
d.
AF
The plantings shall be in conformance to the Baseline Area Master Plan
Plant List or their equivalents.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
T
pedestrian environment.
12. Bicycle infrastructure shall be incorporated as described below and as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through
Inverted U and/or artistic racks located near the building entrance and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
R
b.
Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and maintained
within close proximity to the Western Canal. The bicycle repair station (“fix it
D
13.
station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility and separated from
vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The repair station shall
include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump
affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle repair stand
which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to
the bike.
The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress and egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The Public Transit Department shall retain right-of-way and require construction of
a bus stop pad along westbound Baseline Road west of 10th Street. The bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1262 with
Page 330
a minimum depth of 10 feet, and with the final location to be approved by the
Public Transit Department.
15. The developer shall dedicate a total of 30 feet of right-of-way for the west side of
10th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. Existing irrigation facilities along Baseline Road and 10th Street shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to
identify existing land rights and establish the appropriate process to relocate the
facility. The headwall at the northeast corner of the site shall be relocated outside
of City right-of-way. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
17. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
AF
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.
T
18. This parcel is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone A, on panel
2220 M of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) dated September 18, 2020. 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
R
b.
not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of
the Phoenix City Code.
A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review and
D
19.
c.
approval of Floodplain requirements.
If required, the developer shall provide a FEMA approved CLOMR-F or
CLOMR prior to issuance of a Grading and Drainage permit.
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.
20. 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.
Page 331
21. 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.
22. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
AF
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
ATTEST: T ________________________________
MAYOR
R
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D ____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 332
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-18-21-8
THAT PART OF FARM UNIT "L" OR THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST
QUARTER OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA
AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LYING
SOUTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL RIGHT OF WAY,
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
WHICH BEARS WEST 709.44 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE WEST 320.86 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST
AF
QUARTER;
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 8 MINUTES WEST 662.80 FEET TO THE SOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID WESTERN CANAL;
THENCE NORTH 84 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST 322.38 FEET ALONG SAID
T
CANAL RIGHT OF WAY LINE; THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST
694.82 FEET TO THE PLACE OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER A
DISTANCE OF 709.44 FEET;
R
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL AND THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 240 FEET;
D
THENCE NORTHERLY TO A POINT ON SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE WHICH
IS 8 FEET WESTERLY FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 55 FEET OF THAT PART OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER
OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER
WHICH BEARS WEST A
DISTANCE OF 709.44 FEET FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THEREOF;
THENCE WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 320.86 FEET;
Page 333
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 662.80 FEET
TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN CANAL;
THENCE NORTH 84 DEGREES 18 MINUTES EAST ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF
WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 322.38 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST, ALONG A LINE DESIGNATED
HEREIN AS LINE "A", A DISTANCE OF 694.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT THAT PART OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH 55
FEET WITH SAID LINE "A";
AF
THENCE NORTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID LINE "A" A
DISTANCE OF 145 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 52 MINUTES WEST A DISTANCE OF 20 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH O DEGREES 08 MINUTES EAST A DISTANCE OF 127 FEET;
T
THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY TO A POINT ON SAID NORTH LINE WHICH IS 38
FEET WESTERLY OF THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
R
D
Page 334
Page 335
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-SM-1-
21-8 - Approximately 100 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive (Resolution 21937)
Request to hold a public hearing for the following item to consider adopting the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the related Resolution if approved. The
file is a companion case to Z-8-21-8 and should be heard first, followed by Z-8-21-8.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome community
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard the case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case again on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 5242, 5252, 5424, 5814 and 5822 S. 36th St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 336
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-SM-1-21-8,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
AF ____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
T
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-SM-1-21-8. The 18.41 acres
of property located approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street
R
and Wayland Drive is designated as Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
D
shown below:
Page 337
AF
ATTEST:
T
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
MAYOR
R
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
D
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Page 338
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
April 29, 2021
Application: GPA-SM-1-21-8
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest
corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (18.41
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (18.41
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Map Amendment to Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre for a multifamily residential townhome
community
South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Date: May 11, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Page 339
3) The subject site proposes residential townhomes with access via 36th Street, a
minor collector street, that serves other residential developments. Thirty-sixth
Street connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street that serves as a major
transportation route.
4) The proposal will allow for additional housing choices in an area with diverse
housing opportunities that include rental apartments, mobile homes, and privately
owned single-family detached residences. The companion Rezoning Case
Z-8-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency in scale and character as
well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family zoned property.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th
Street and Wayland Drive and contains two single-family homes. The companion
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8 is requesting to rezone the subject site from 18.41 acres of
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to 18.41 acres of R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) to allow a new 192-unit condominium or townhome development. The
development, as proposed by the applicant, would allow a density up to 10.43 dwelling
units per gross acre. The subject site is located adjacent to a minor collector street, 36th
Street, which terminates at the junction of two designated multi-use trails, Esteban Park
and the old San Francisco Canal.
ESTEBAN PARK AREA PLAN
In 2003, the City of Phoenix adopted the Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP), a non-
regulatory area plan, that addresses the existing conditions of the plan area, articulates
a vision for the future and offers a series of implementation strategies to achieve the
community’s vision for the area. Six specific goals are outlined in the EPAP pertaining
to: land use compatibility, urban design, neighborhood preservation, transportation
safety, drainage and recreational amenities.
The EPAP Proposed General Plan Map designated the subject site as Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre, while the proposal is to allow Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre. The Esteban Park Area Plan Land Use Compatibility Goal 1, Objective
B, encourages land assemblage for existing vacant parcels and parcels to be
redeveloped to improve site layout plus design. The subject site is comprised of three
parcels, one vacant and two underutilized, that are proposed to be redeveloped with a
condominium or townhome project. Goal 2, Urban Design, Objective B, encourages
height transitions in multifamily zoned parcels next to single-family residential, while
Objective C encourages development stipulations that incorporate elements of the
architectural history, character and scale of the area into the development. The
proposed housing product are townhomes that will allow for single-family occupation,
while following the step-back height provisions per the Zoning Ordinance applicable to
Page 340
multifamily zoned properties adjacent to single-family residential. As stipulated in
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8, the development shall incorporate design elements that may
include pitched roofs, which are characteristic of the area.
Goal 4 Transportation Safety, Objective A, of the EPAP notes the desire to implement
and promote plans for multi-use trail systems for pedestrians, equestrians and
bicyclists. As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, the proposed development will
promote elements such as detached, shaded sidewalks, benches or seating elements,
and a bicycle repair station at the terminus of 36th Street where a multi-use trail,
Esteban Park and this development intersection. Goal 6, Recreational Amenities,
Objective A, encourage the consultation of the Parks and Recreation Department
regarding the addition of a trail along the south side of Esteban Park. The applicant and
staff contacted the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the location of a multi-
use trail along the northern border of this development adjacent to the southside of
Esteban Park, and it was determined that no trail will be required as part of this
development next to Esteban Park due to challenges with developing along or across
the old San Francisco Canal.
This General Plan Amendment, along with the development standards stipulated in
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8, will allow for a land use map designation that is consistent
with the character of the area where existing single-family uses of various densities
exist and promote many of the goals from the Esteban Park Area Plan.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed general plan land use amendment is located in the eastern portion of the
South Mountain Village. North of the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation
is Parks/Open Space-Public where Esteban Park and the former San Francisco Canal
are located. This land is zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District).
South and west of the subject site two single-family residential subdivisions where
properties are designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. These
properties are zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and are developed with
single-family detached homes.
East of the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map has designated properties as
Commerce / Business Park. These properties are developed primarily with commerce
park uses and several single-family homes, zoned Ind. Pk. (Industrial Park District) and
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District).
Page 341
Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Withey Morris, PLC
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for condominiums or townhomes, would allow development of a
housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses in the area.
Access to the site is shared with other single-family uses in the area via 36th
Street, a minor collector street, that connects to Southern Avenue which provides
transit opportunities. As stipulated, the concurrent rezoning case Z-8-21-8, will
incorporate height restrictions, balcony restrictions on upper floors, and
enhanced perimeter landscaping standards, which will also help to provide a
transition from the proposed development to adjacent residential properties and
to respect local conditions.
Page 342
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS;
LAND USE 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 proposed development will have the units adjacent to 36th Street be street-
oriented, with resident and guest parking located in the back of units plus
internally distributed within the site. As stipulated, the development will promote a
pedestrian environment by requiring direct pedestrian connections to public
streets from residential units adjacent to 36th Street, plus detached and shaded
sidewalks along 36th Street.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Require
appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses.
Uses in the surrounding area consist of public, residential, commercial and
agricultural uses. The proposed development is consistent in scale and character
with the surrounding uses and will provide an appropriate transition between
adjacent single-family detached and a public park, as well as commerce park
development to the east. As stipulated, the concurrent rezoning case Z-8-21-8,
will incorporate height restrictions, balcony restrictions on upper floors, and
enhanced perimeter landscaping standards, which will also help mitigate impacts
on adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance contains
“step-back” provisions that require a one-foot setback for every one-foot of
building height above 15 feet where multifamily zoning is located next to single-
family zoning.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
Approval of the request will allow the introduction of condominiums or
townhomes, an additional housing option in the area. This diversity in housing
opportunities is compatible with the surrounding land use patterns. Furthermore,
the proposed development will help to provide housing for a broader range of
lifestyles in the area.
Page 343
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-SM-1-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation of 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre is consistent in scale and character
with existing land uses in the surrounding area. The land use map designation, as
requested, would further diversify the land uses in this part of the South Mountain
Village in a manner consistent with development patterns based on the existing zoning
and general plan land use map designations in the general area. Furthermore, the
requested land use map designation provides a transition area between the single-
family residential and Commerce/Business Park land use designations.
The subject site is located adjacent to a minor collector street, 36th Street, which
terminates at the junction of two designated multi-use trails, Esteban Park and the old
San Francisco Canal. As stipulated, the concurrent case Z-8-21-8 will enhance the
compatibility and consistency with the land use pattern in the surrounding area while
furthering the goals from the Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP). Approval of the request,
with concurrent case Z-8-21-8, will support the development of this underutilized
property with uses that are compatible with the land use designations and zoning
districts in the general area.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
April 29, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 344
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-21-8_BW ACRES: 18.41 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 ( 18.41 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
Residential 15+ du/acre
Commerce/Business Park
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 10 to 15 ( 18.41+/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
Page 345
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-21-8 ACRES: 18.41 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 ( 18.41 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commerce/Business Park
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 10 to 15 ( 18.41+/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
Page 346
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-1-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 18.41 acres from Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre to Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre
Proposed Use Multifamily residential townhome community
(condominiums)
Location Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of
36th Street and Wayland Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in the staff report
VPC Vote 11-0 Motion passes; with members Aldama, Alvarez,
Brownell, Busching, Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard,
M. Smith, Viera and Daniels in favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
8 requests to speak in support from members of the public were received regarding
cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. Two other members of the public registered
their support but did not wish to speak.
Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation for
companion cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. He discussed the location of the
site, noting surrounding land uses including a public park, various schools and
commercial services including a grocery store and urban farm. He discussed the
existing General Plan Land Use map designation and the requested Land Use map
amendment. He discussed the surrounding zoning districts in the area, Esteban
Park Area Plan, and other policy documents including the General Plan. The
conceptual site plan was shown, indicating the vehicular access points, open
space, perimeter landscape areas, amenities, density proposed and shown, and lot
coverage. The conceptual building elevations and materials were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation on the case and
describing the proposed stipulations, as presented in the staff report.
Andrew Biskind, with Avenue North, introduced himself and the project.
Benjamin Tate, with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and discussed the
subject site and site conditions. An overview of the proposal and site plan was
Page 347
provided, followed by renderings of the proposed development. He discussed
community open space areas and the pedestrian seating node located north of the
site. An overview of neighborhood outreach including adjacent neighbors,
businesses, Parks and Recreation Department and other community groups. The
three community benefits were addressed per the General Plan, including goals
and policies. Various letters of support were received, and an overview of this
project addressed various priorities listed by the South Mountain VPC. An example
of another project along 16th Street was provided and concluded the presentation
by requesting approval of both cases.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• Have you considered imposing a limit on the number of homes that can be
owned by investors as part of this development?
• Will VA and FHA loans be available?
• Have you considered changing the term “community garden” to “garden
area” referenced in the stipulations?
Mr. Biskind responded that it is difficult to restrict qualified buyers but do intend to
prohibit short-term rentals in this community.
Mr. Tate responded that they can consider CC&R restrictions that could limit the
number of units owned by a single individual or entity within this community. The
ability to offer FHA and VA loans will be applied for and is intended to be provided.
Kassandra Alvarez asked for clarification on the lighting provided within this
development.
Mr. Tate responded that pedestrian-scale lighting is proposed along pedestrian
paths, including along Esteban Park.
Kay Shepard asked the following questions:
• What is the density proposed?
• How many uncovered parking stalls are provided?
• Why are palm trees proposed within landscape areas?
• What is the size of each residential unit?
Mr. Tate responded that 192 units are proposed and that there was a discrepancy
on the number of units within this development. Excess parking stalls are
distributed throughout the site, and palm trees were conceptually depicted but may
not be ultimately chosen. The community will be comprised of 2 and 3-bedroom
units.
Mr. Marchuk asked if there is a community benefit agreement proposed? And why
the R-2 zoning district was not selected if the project can fit within that density
permitted?
Page 348
Mr. Tate responded that no community benefit agreement is proposed at this time,
and the R-2 zoning district was not selected originally since the density in the site
plan changed following a revision during the rezoning process.
Mr. Bojorquez responded that the R-2 zoning district allows the envisioned project
density but could require a landscape setback modification.
Mr. Tate responded that a site plan revision at this moment would be very difficult
due to all the engineering that has been done so far.
Ms. Busching asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the number of units
referenced in Stipulation No. 5 to not exceed 192 units total. Also, adding the word
“public” to Stipulation No. 15, in order to allow the pedestrian seating node to be
publicly accessible.
Mr. Tate responded that he would support those proposed stipulation modifications.
Gene Holmerud asked for clarification on perimeter setbacks and access along
36th Street.
Mr. Tate discussed the orientation of units and street improvements along 36th
Street.
Mr. Holmerud stated that bike lockers are needed and discussed the building
elevations proposed.
Mr. Tate discussed the bicycle amenities provided within the pedestrian seating
node.
Muriel Smith asked for clarification on dustproofing requirements along Esteban
Park.
Mr. Tate responded that there were ongoing discussions with Council District 8 to
consider relocating the green waste area along Esteban Park to another location.
Chairwoman Daniels asked the following questions:
• Will this project change from lot sales to unit rentals in the future?
• What will be the HOA fees?
• What is the price-point for these new homes?
Mr. Tate responded that the community will not change from lot sales to rentals. It
is too early at this time to project HOA maintenance costs and actual project costs.
The price of the homes is projected to be in the mid-$300,000 range.
Page 349
Chairwoman Daniels is pleased to encourage homeownership in this community.
She opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Dr. Bruce McHenry works in South Mountain Community College (SMCC) and
discussed the classroom engagement by the applicant, Andrew Biskind and Ryan,
who reached out to him years prior and provided a presentation to students at
SMCC regarding entrepreneurship. He supports the developer and this new project.
Darren Chapman, with Tiger Mountain Foundation, introduced himself and
discussed his 15 years of experience with community gardens. He was contacted
by the developer who is engaged with the community. His experience will help keep
up and ensure that the community garden can last. He supports the developer, who
has been amazing to work with.
Cristian Perez, soccer coach with a soccer club at Esteban Park, introduced
himself and discussed the reutilization of the current green waste area,
transforming this into usable open space. He likes the project’s architecture and
discussed how the developer has approached him. The project will allow for first-
time home buyers and others to continue to live in South Phoenix and is pleased
with this development.
Jimmy Scroggins is a motivation speaker and is pleased to see this community
develop. He discussed the youth in the area and applauds the type of development
that adds value to the Esteban Park area for the South Phoenix community.
Timothy Hills, Nate, Wendy and Chris registered to speak in support of these two
cases but were not connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.
Committee member Lee Coleman left the meeting at 9:15pm bringing the quorum
to 11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for discussion or a motion on both cases.
MOTION – GPA-SM-1-21-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to approve case GPA-SM-1-21-8 per the staff
recommendation presented in the staff report. Ms. Shepard seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
11-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 350
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-SM-1-21-8 (Companion Case Z-8-21-8)
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street
and Wayland Drive
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Residential 10 to 15
Acreage: 18.41
Proposal: Multifamily residential townhome community
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 36th & Southern, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 5/11/2021 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-1-21-8, per
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Howard
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The subject site proposes residential townhomes with access via 36th Street, a
minor collector street, that serves other residential developments. Thirty-sixth
Page 351
Street connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street that serves as a major
transportation route.
4. The proposal will allow for additional housing choices in an area with diverse
housing opportunities that include rental apartments, mobile homes, and
privately owned single-family detached residences. The companion Rezoning
Case Z-8-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency in scale and
character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family zoned
property.
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 352
Report
21-8 - Approximately 100 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive (Resolution 21937)
Request to hold a public hearing for the following item to consider adopting the
Planning Commission's recommendation and the related Resolution if approved. The
file is a companion case to Z-8-21-8 and should be heard first, followed by Z-8-21-8.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome community
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard the case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case again on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 5242, 5252, 5424, 5814 and 5822 S. 36th St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 336
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-SM-1-21-8,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
AF ____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
T
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-SM-1-21-8. The 18.41 acres
of property located approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street
R
and Wayland Drive is designated as Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
D
shown below:
Page 337
AF
ATTEST:
T
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
MAYOR
R
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
D
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Ed Zuercher, City Manager
Page 338
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
April 29, 2021
Application: GPA-SM-1-21-8
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest
corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (18.41
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre (18.41
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Map Amendment to Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre for a multifamily residential townhome
community
South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Date: May 11, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Page 339
3) The subject site proposes residential townhomes with access via 36th Street, a
minor collector street, that serves other residential developments. Thirty-sixth
Street connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street that serves as a major
transportation route.
4) The proposal will allow for additional housing choices in an area with diverse
housing opportunities that include rental apartments, mobile homes, and privately
owned single-family detached residences. The companion Rezoning Case
Z-8-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency in scale and character as
well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family zoned property.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th
Street and Wayland Drive and contains two single-family homes. The companion
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8 is requesting to rezone the subject site from 18.41 acres of
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to 18.41 acres of R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) to allow a new 192-unit condominium or townhome development. The
development, as proposed by the applicant, would allow a density up to 10.43 dwelling
units per gross acre. The subject site is located adjacent to a minor collector street, 36th
Street, which terminates at the junction of two designated multi-use trails, Esteban Park
and the old San Francisco Canal.
ESTEBAN PARK AREA PLAN
In 2003, the City of Phoenix adopted the Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP), a non-
regulatory area plan, that addresses the existing conditions of the plan area, articulates
a vision for the future and offers a series of implementation strategies to achieve the
community’s vision for the area. Six specific goals are outlined in the EPAP pertaining
to: land use compatibility, urban design, neighborhood preservation, transportation
safety, drainage and recreational amenities.
The EPAP Proposed General Plan Map designated the subject site as Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre, while the proposal is to allow Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre. The Esteban Park Area Plan Land Use Compatibility Goal 1, Objective
B, encourages land assemblage for existing vacant parcels and parcels to be
redeveloped to improve site layout plus design. The subject site is comprised of three
parcels, one vacant and two underutilized, that are proposed to be redeveloped with a
condominium or townhome project. Goal 2, Urban Design, Objective B, encourages
height transitions in multifamily zoned parcels next to single-family residential, while
Objective C encourages development stipulations that incorporate elements of the
architectural history, character and scale of the area into the development. The
proposed housing product are townhomes that will allow for single-family occupation,
while following the step-back height provisions per the Zoning Ordinance applicable to
Page 340
multifamily zoned properties adjacent to single-family residential. As stipulated in
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8, the development shall incorporate design elements that may
include pitched roofs, which are characteristic of the area.
Goal 4 Transportation Safety, Objective A, of the EPAP notes the desire to implement
and promote plans for multi-use trail systems for pedestrians, equestrians and
bicyclists. As stipulated in the companion rezoning case, the proposed development will
promote elements such as detached, shaded sidewalks, benches or seating elements,
and a bicycle repair station at the terminus of 36th Street where a multi-use trail,
Esteban Park and this development intersection. Goal 6, Recreational Amenities,
Objective A, encourage the consultation of the Parks and Recreation Department
regarding the addition of a trail along the south side of Esteban Park. The applicant and
staff contacted the Parks and Recreation Department regarding the location of a multi-
use trail along the northern border of this development adjacent to the southside of
Esteban Park, and it was determined that no trail will be required as part of this
development next to Esteban Park due to challenges with developing along or across
the old San Francisco Canal.
This General Plan Amendment, along with the development standards stipulated in
Rezoning Case Z-8-21-8, will allow for a land use map designation that is consistent
with the character of the area where existing single-family uses of various densities
exist and promote many of the goals from the Esteban Park Area Plan.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed general plan land use amendment is located in the eastern portion of the
South Mountain Village. North of the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation
is Parks/Open Space-Public where Esteban Park and the former San Francisco Canal
are located. This land is zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District).
South and west of the subject site two single-family residential subdivisions where
properties are designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. These
properties are zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and are developed with
single-family detached homes.
East of the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map has designated properties as
Commerce / Business Park. These properties are developed primarily with commerce
park uses and several single-family homes, zoned Ind. Pk. (Industrial Park District) and
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District).
Page 341
Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Withey Morris, PLC
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for condominiums or townhomes, would allow development of a
housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses in the area.
Access to the site is shared with other single-family uses in the area via 36th
Street, a minor collector street, that connects to Southern Avenue which provides
transit opportunities. As stipulated, the concurrent rezoning case Z-8-21-8, will
incorporate height restrictions, balcony restrictions on upper floors, and
enhanced perimeter landscaping standards, which will also help to provide a
transition from the proposed development to adjacent residential properties and
to respect local conditions.
Page 342
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS;
LAND USE 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 proposed development will have the units adjacent to 36th Street be street-
oriented, with resident and guest parking located in the back of units plus
internally distributed within the site. As stipulated, the development will promote a
pedestrian environment by requiring direct pedestrian connections to public
streets from residential units adjacent to 36th Street, plus detached and shaded
sidewalks along 36th Street.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY AND CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Require
appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses.
Uses in the surrounding area consist of public, residential, commercial and
agricultural uses. The proposed development is consistent in scale and character
with the surrounding uses and will provide an appropriate transition between
adjacent single-family detached and a public park, as well as commerce park
development to the east. As stipulated, the concurrent rezoning case Z-8-21-8,
will incorporate height restrictions, balcony restrictions on upper floors, and
enhanced perimeter landscaping standards, which will also help mitigate impacts
on adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, the Zoning Ordinance contains
“step-back” provisions that require a one-foot setback for every one-foot of
building height above 15 feet where multifamily zoning is located next to single-
family zoning.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
Approval of the request will allow the introduction of condominiums or
townhomes, an additional housing option in the area. This diversity in housing
opportunities is compatible with the surrounding land use patterns. Furthermore,
the proposed development will help to provide housing for a broader range of
lifestyles in the area.
Page 343
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-SM-1-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation of 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre is consistent in scale and character
with existing land uses in the surrounding area. The land use map designation, as
requested, would further diversify the land uses in this part of the South Mountain
Village in a manner consistent with development patterns based on the existing zoning
and general plan land use map designations in the general area. Furthermore, the
requested land use map designation provides a transition area between the single-
family residential and Commerce/Business Park land use designations.
The subject site is located adjacent to a minor collector street, 36th Street, which
terminates at the junction of two designated multi-use trails, Esteban Park and the old
San Francisco Canal. As stipulated, the concurrent case Z-8-21-8 will enhance the
compatibility and consistency with the land use pattern in the surrounding area while
furthering the goals from the Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP). Approval of the request,
with concurrent case Z-8-21-8, will support the development of this underutilized
property with uses that are compatible with the land use designations and zoning
districts in the general area.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
April 29, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 344
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-21-8_BW ACRES: 18.41 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 ( 18.41 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
Residential 15+ du/acre
Commerce/Business Park
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 10 to 15 ( 18.41+/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
Page 345
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-1-21-8 ACRES: 18.41 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 ( 18.41 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
Residential 15+ du/ac
Commerce/Business Park
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 10 to 15 ( 18.41+/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac
LA SALLE ST
34TH PL
36TH ST
WAYLAND DR
Page 346
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-1-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 18.41 acres from Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre to Residential 10 to 15 dwelling
units per acre
Proposed Use Multifamily residential townhome community
(condominiums)
Location Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of
36th Street and Wayland Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in the staff report
VPC Vote 11-0 Motion passes; with members Aldama, Alvarez,
Brownell, Busching, Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard,
M. Smith, Viera and Daniels in favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
8 requests to speak in support from members of the public were received regarding
cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. Two other members of the public registered
their support but did not wish to speak.
Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation for
companion cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. He discussed the location of the
site, noting surrounding land uses including a public park, various schools and
commercial services including a grocery store and urban farm. He discussed the
existing General Plan Land Use map designation and the requested Land Use map
amendment. He discussed the surrounding zoning districts in the area, Esteban
Park Area Plan, and other policy documents including the General Plan. The
conceptual site plan was shown, indicating the vehicular access points, open
space, perimeter landscape areas, amenities, density proposed and shown, and lot
coverage. The conceptual building elevations and materials were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation on the case and
describing the proposed stipulations, as presented in the staff report.
Andrew Biskind, with Avenue North, introduced himself and the project.
Benjamin Tate, with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and discussed the
subject site and site conditions. An overview of the proposal and site plan was
Page 347
provided, followed by renderings of the proposed development. He discussed
community open space areas and the pedestrian seating node located north of the
site. An overview of neighborhood outreach including adjacent neighbors,
businesses, Parks and Recreation Department and other community groups. The
three community benefits were addressed per the General Plan, including goals
and policies. Various letters of support were received, and an overview of this
project addressed various priorities listed by the South Mountain VPC. An example
of another project along 16th Street was provided and concluded the presentation
by requesting approval of both cases.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• Have you considered imposing a limit on the number of homes that can be
owned by investors as part of this development?
• Will VA and FHA loans be available?
• Have you considered changing the term “community garden” to “garden
area” referenced in the stipulations?
Mr. Biskind responded that it is difficult to restrict qualified buyers but do intend to
prohibit short-term rentals in this community.
Mr. Tate responded that they can consider CC&R restrictions that could limit the
number of units owned by a single individual or entity within this community. The
ability to offer FHA and VA loans will be applied for and is intended to be provided.
Kassandra Alvarez asked for clarification on the lighting provided within this
development.
Mr. Tate responded that pedestrian-scale lighting is proposed along pedestrian
paths, including along Esteban Park.
Kay Shepard asked the following questions:
• What is the density proposed?
• How many uncovered parking stalls are provided?
• Why are palm trees proposed within landscape areas?
• What is the size of each residential unit?
Mr. Tate responded that 192 units are proposed and that there was a discrepancy
on the number of units within this development. Excess parking stalls are
distributed throughout the site, and palm trees were conceptually depicted but may
not be ultimately chosen. The community will be comprised of 2 and 3-bedroom
units.
Mr. Marchuk asked if there is a community benefit agreement proposed? And why
the R-2 zoning district was not selected if the project can fit within that density
permitted?
Page 348
Mr. Tate responded that no community benefit agreement is proposed at this time,
and the R-2 zoning district was not selected originally since the density in the site
plan changed following a revision during the rezoning process.
Mr. Bojorquez responded that the R-2 zoning district allows the envisioned project
density but could require a landscape setback modification.
Mr. Tate responded that a site plan revision at this moment would be very difficult
due to all the engineering that has been done so far.
Ms. Busching asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the number of units
referenced in Stipulation No. 5 to not exceed 192 units total. Also, adding the word
“public” to Stipulation No. 15, in order to allow the pedestrian seating node to be
publicly accessible.
Mr. Tate responded that he would support those proposed stipulation modifications.
Gene Holmerud asked for clarification on perimeter setbacks and access along
36th Street.
Mr. Tate discussed the orientation of units and street improvements along 36th
Street.
Mr. Holmerud stated that bike lockers are needed and discussed the building
elevations proposed.
Mr. Tate discussed the bicycle amenities provided within the pedestrian seating
node.
Muriel Smith asked for clarification on dustproofing requirements along Esteban
Park.
Mr. Tate responded that there were ongoing discussions with Council District 8 to
consider relocating the green waste area along Esteban Park to another location.
Chairwoman Daniels asked the following questions:
• Will this project change from lot sales to unit rentals in the future?
• What will be the HOA fees?
• What is the price-point for these new homes?
Mr. Tate responded that the community will not change from lot sales to rentals. It
is too early at this time to project HOA maintenance costs and actual project costs.
The price of the homes is projected to be in the mid-$300,000 range.
Page 349
Chairwoman Daniels is pleased to encourage homeownership in this community.
She opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Dr. Bruce McHenry works in South Mountain Community College (SMCC) and
discussed the classroom engagement by the applicant, Andrew Biskind and Ryan,
who reached out to him years prior and provided a presentation to students at
SMCC regarding entrepreneurship. He supports the developer and this new project.
Darren Chapman, with Tiger Mountain Foundation, introduced himself and
discussed his 15 years of experience with community gardens. He was contacted
by the developer who is engaged with the community. His experience will help keep
up and ensure that the community garden can last. He supports the developer, who
has been amazing to work with.
Cristian Perez, soccer coach with a soccer club at Esteban Park, introduced
himself and discussed the reutilization of the current green waste area,
transforming this into usable open space. He likes the project’s architecture and
discussed how the developer has approached him. The project will allow for first-
time home buyers and others to continue to live in South Phoenix and is pleased
with this development.
Jimmy Scroggins is a motivation speaker and is pleased to see this community
develop. He discussed the youth in the area and applauds the type of development
that adds value to the Esteban Park area for the South Phoenix community.
Timothy Hills, Nate, Wendy and Chris registered to speak in support of these two
cases but were not connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.
Committee member Lee Coleman left the meeting at 9:15pm bringing the quorum
to 11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for discussion or a motion on both cases.
MOTION – GPA-SM-1-21-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to approve case GPA-SM-1-21-8 per the staff
recommendation presented in the staff report. Ms. Shepard seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
11-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 350
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-SM-1-21-8 (Companion Case Z-8-21-8)
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street
and Wayland Drive
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
To: Residential 10 to 15
Acreage: 18.41
Proposal: Multifamily residential townhome community
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 36th & Southern, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 5/11/2021 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-1-21-8, per
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Howard
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The subject site proposes residential townhomes with access via 36th Street, a
minor collector street, that serves other residential developments. Thirty-sixth
Page 351
Street connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street that serves as a major
transportation route.
4. The proposal will allow for additional housing choices in an area with diverse
housing opportunities that include rental apartments, mobile homes, and
privately owned single-family detached residences. The companion Rezoning
Case Z-8-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency in scale and
character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family zoned
property.
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 352
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-8-21-8 -
Approximately 100 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive (Ordinance G-6872)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-8-21-8
and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow a multifamily residential townhome community. This file is
a companion case to GPA-SM-1-21-8 and should be heard immediately following.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome community (condominiums)
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications
by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 5242, 5252, 5424, 5814 and 5822 S. 36th St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 353
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
AF
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-8-21-8) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
follows:
T
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
SECTION 1. The zoning of an 18.41-acre site located approximately 100
R
feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive in a portion of
Section 25, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A”, is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3”
D
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 354
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent
materials and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as
brick, stone, colored textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative
and aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public
c.
AF
park, shall contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or
another exterior accent material that exhibits quality and durability.
All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation
T
in window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings
adjacent or oriented toward single-family residential homes not part of this
development.
4.
R The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards,
as described below and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
D b.
c.
groupings, shall be planted where residential units are adjacent or
oriented towards single-family residential homes not a part of this
development.
Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, shall be utilized unless otherwise stated.
50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-
inch caliper trees shall be utilized.
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover,
shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity.
Page 355
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a maximum density of 192 dwelling units.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to
the site along 36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular
ingress and egress, or limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide
an entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a
low wall not exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance,
AF
plus oriented towards the public street or public park, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the
following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department:
a.
b. T
Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the
public sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the
development.
The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular
entryway with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided
on both sides of the entryway into the development. The landscaped
R
c.
accent areas shall provide a visually unique character with drought-
tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live
cover.
A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally
D d.
within the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a
minimum of three drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant,
ornamental, flowering shrubs to provide a minimum 75 percent live
cover. Twenty five percent of the required live cover may be ground
cover plants.
The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other than those used
to pave the parking surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing
or a combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view
fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 356
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element,
such as tile or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a
minimum, distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a
AF
picnic table.
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one
bench located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
12.
f.
T
Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet
that will each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or
seating feature.
Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity
and seating areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs,
grasses, or groundcover plants), as approved by the Planning and
13.
R
Development Department.
Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using
architectural shade and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
D
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as
described below and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department:
a.
b.
Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual
dwelling units adjacent to this street.
The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths
connecting to the sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian
connections along vehicular entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a
pathway connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing
through a central amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
Page 357
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall
be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or
other pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings.
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas.
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street.
AF
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot publicly
accessible pedestrian seating node and amenity area along the most northern
portion of the development adjacent to the western edge of 36th Street (future
cul-de-sac portion) to include the following elements at a minimum, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a.
b.
T
Two benches or seating features.
Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area
of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed
to the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or
the ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
R
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden,
art feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains,
or other uniquely identifying features.
D
16.
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-
of-way, planted and maintained with at least three plant materials
including a series of annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom
throughout the year.
The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
Page 358
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature
height of 24 inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of
the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
AF
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress / egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-
foot half-street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as
20.
21. T
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land
rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that
22. R
require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to
obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
D
23.
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.
The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
Page 359
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
26. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
AF
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July, 2021.
ATTEST:
T
____________________________City Clerk
________________________________
MAYOR
R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
D
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 360
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-8-21-8
A portion of Parcels E and G as shown on A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 48-60-61
BARTLETT-HEARD LANDS, recorded in Book 14 of Plats, Page 34, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona, located in the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 1
North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, being more
particularly described as follows;
BEGINNING at Northwest corner of FINAL PLAT FOR CARDENAS VILLAS @
YANCHE SUBDIVISION, recorded in Book 864 of Maps, Page 05, records of said
county; Thence North 07 Degrees 16 Minutes 44 Seconds West along the West line of
said Parcels E and G a distance of 499.84 feet to an angle point on the West line of said
AF
Parcel G; Thence North 50 Degrees 03 Minutes 07 Seconds East along the
Northwesterly line of said Parcel G a distance of 1213.65 feet to the centerline of South
36th Street; Thence South 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 56 Seconds East along said
centerline a distance of 1257.01 feet; Thence South 88 Degrees 48 Minutes 27
Seconds West along the North line of said FINAL PLAT FOR CARDENAS VILLAS @
YANCHE SUBDIVISION a distance of 868.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
T
The above described parcel contains 18.393 acres.
R
D
Page 361
Page 362
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning May 11, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(18.41 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(18.41 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome
community (condominiums)
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the
northwest corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive
Owner: 36th & Southern, LLC
Applicant / Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-SM-1-21-8): Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre
Minor
36th Street Collector 25-foot west half street
Street
Street Map Classification
San
Francisco Local Street 50-foot north and south half street
Drive
Page 363
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the acquisition of vacant,
underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate redevelopment, compatible with the
adjacent neighborhood character and adopted area plans.
The subject site is mostly vacant and underutilized with two single-family homes on nearly 20
acres. The proposed development would permit the construction of 192 condominium units or
townhomes on the site at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding land uses which are
predominantly single-family.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE ; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system, development
should be designed to include increased amenities for transit, pedestrian and bicyclists
such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale
lighting and way-finding.
Located at the junction of a minor collector street, planned multi-use trail and public park, the
proposal, as stipulated, will provide elements for both pedestrians and bicyclists to utilize in order
to promote walking and alternative transportation. These elements include shaded detached
sidewalks along 36th Street, shaded benches or seating elements, and a bicycle repair station at
the terminus of 36th Street within the development. Residential units adjacent to 36th Street and
Esteban Park will also be oriented towards these areas to promote safety via “eyes on the
street.”
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The development, as stipulated, provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful to local
conditions by transitioning commerce park uses east of 36th Street with single-family uses west
of 36th Street and adjacent to this development.
Page 364
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along the adjacent public
sidewalks, pedestrian paths connecting the development to adjacent streets and amenity areas.
This will help to encourage walking and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard
surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP): See Background Item No. 4.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 12.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 13.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 14.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residential R1-6
North Esteban Park R1-6
South Single-family residential R1-6
Single-family residential and
East (across 36th Street) S-1 and Ind. Pk.
commerce park uses
West Single-family residential R1-6
Page 365
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
R-3 – Multifamily Residence District
(Average Lot Development Option)
Provisions on the proposed site
Standards R-3 Requirements
plan
Gross Acreage - 18.41 acres
Total Maximum Number of 267 units 192 units (Met)
Units
Maximum Density 14.5 dwelling units per acre 10.43 dwelling units per acre (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 28% (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet. Maximum of 2 stories and 25 feet.
(Met)
There shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten
feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be
increased one foot for each
additional one foot of building
setback to the maximum
permitted height.
MINIMUM PERIMETER STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides (North and South North: 10 feet North: 23 feet (Met)
property lines)
South: 10 feet South: 21 feet (Met)
Rear (West property line) West: 15 feet West: 21 feet (Met)
Page 366
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides and Rear (North, North: 5 feet North: 5 feet (Met)
South and West property
lines) South: 5 feet South: 5 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% of gross site area 6.4% (Met)
Minimum Amenities 2 amenities required 3 amenities provided (Met)
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 1.5 parking spaces per 1 or 2 555 parking spaces provided.
bedroom unit, and 2 spaces (Met)
per 3 or more bedroom unit.
0.5 unreserved guest parking
spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit, and 1.0 spaces per 3 or
more bedroom unit.
494 parking spaces required.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 18.41 acres located approximately 100 feet north of the
northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive from R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) for a condominium or
townhome community. The site is primarily vacant and underutilized with two
single-family detached homes across the 18.41 acre site.
In 1925, the site was subdivided as part of the Bartlett Heard Lands Lots 48-60-
61 subdivision which created 14 lots as part of a survey by Mr. Harry E. Jones. In
1960, the subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix from unincorporated
Maricopa County and zoned R1-6 under Ordinance No. G-449 in 1961. Historic
aerial imagery shows that the site was historically utilized for agricultural uses.
Page 367
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The surrounding area
contains a variety of
residential, commercial and
agricultural zoning districts
including S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence District),
R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District), R-3A
(Multifamily Residence
District), R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District), C-1
(Neighborhood Retail
District), Ind. Pk. (Industrial
Park District), and CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
Commerce Park). The Department
subject site is also adjacent
to Esteban Park, a public
park that serves the
surrounding uses.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, thus a concurrent General Plan Amendment
case GPA-SM-1-21-8 proposes to change the land use map designation to
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. North of the site is Esteban Park
designated as Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. South and west of the site
are residential subdivisions designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. Also, west are two apartment complexes and a mobile home community
designated as Residential 10 to 15 and 15+ dwelling units per acre. East of the
subject site are various commerce park uses designed as Commerce/ Business
Park on the General Plan Land Use Map.
Page 368
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
The R-3 zoning requested is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation per GPA-SM-1-21-8 and compatible with existing and
future envisioned land uses in the area.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
4. Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP)
The Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP) was adopted in 2003 with the intent of
guiding future development in this area which has transitioned from large-lot
agricultural uses to a mixture of agricultural, commerce park and residential land
uses. The Esteban Park Area Plan is bounded by Roeser Road (north),
Southern Avenue (south), 36th Street (east) and 24th Street (west). At the
southeast corner of 32nd Street and Roeser Road, one can find Esteban Park, a
public park which was annexed into the City of Phoenix in the 1960s and which
serves as the only publicly accessible open space in the general area today.
Page 369
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
The EPAP seeks to accomplish
this vision through six goals
pertaining to:
1. Land Use Compatibility;
2. Urban Design;
3. Neighborhood
Preservation;
4. Transportation Safety;
5. Drainage;
6. Recreation Amenities;
The proposed development
furthers the goals of the EPAP by
assembling and redeveloping
three vacant parcels with a
residential use that is
appropriately located.
Goal 2, Urban Design, of the
EPAP outlines the importance of
incorporating elements of the
architectural history, character
and scale of the area into
development stipulations. The
design of the proposed EPAP aerial map with Planning and Development
townhomes includes pitched Department annotations, Source: Planning and
roofs, which are consistent with Development Department
the architectural history of the
area and surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Staff
recommends Stipulation No. 1 to
address enhancements in the
architecture, materials and colors
for building elevations, in order to
recognize the history of the area
and enhance the frontage along
Esteban Park and 36th Street.
Goal 2 of the EPAP also recommends height transitions in multifamily zoned
parcels adjacent to single-family residential. The Zoning Ordinance presently
contains a step-back provision applicable to multifamily developments where
Page 370
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
adjacent to single-family zoned properties. However, to promote permitted
building height consistency in the area, staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to
limit the maximum building height permitted to two stories and 30 feet in case the
Average Lot development option is not utilized in the future, and to maintain the
compatibility from this development with adjacent single-family residential
neighborhoods. Furthermore, Stipulation No. 3 prohibits balconies on upper
floors of residential units from being adjacent or oriented towards single-family
developments, in order to protect privacy of adjacent neighborhoods.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 4 pertaining to enhanced landscaping
standards along perimeter setbacks to include evergreen trees, whose foliage
will remain intact year-round, to be placed where adjacent to single-family
neighborhoods that exist in the area to further buffer this development from
adjacent uses. A variety of trees sizes and ground cover material are also
recommended in order to promote shade, visually appealing landscaped areas
and to screen the site from adjacent uses. This is consistent with Goal 3 of the
EPAP which intends to preserve neighborhoods.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 5 which limits the maximum density in this
development to 12.50 dwelling units per gross acre in order to maintain the
compatibility with surrounding land uses. The conceptual site plan provided by
the applicant depicts a density of 10.43 dwelling units per gross acre, thus this
stipulation allows for additional flexibility in incorporating additional residential
units during the site plan review process. This is consistent with Goal 3 of the
EPAP which intends to preserve neighborhoods and allow new land uses where
appropriate.
The Parks and Recreation Department was consulted regarding Esteban Park
and it was determined that no additional improvements would be necessary by
this development pertaining to Esteban Park.
PROPOSAL
5. Site Plan
The applicant is proposing 192 condominiums or townhomes, with both two-
and three-bedroom units, across multiple residential buildings distributed
throughout the subject site. All of the proposed buildings will be two stories,
under 30 feet in height. Multiple pedestrian and vehicular access points to the
subject site are proposed along 36th Street, with private vehicular drives
connecting individual unit garages and parking spaces. Two parking spaces are
proposed within each residential unit garage, with uncovered parking spaces
available throughout the site.
Page 371
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Staff is recommending Stipulation No. 6 to require that access to this
development is maintained along 36th Street, a minor collector street. The site
is adjacent to San Francisco Drive, a local street, but no access is proposed
access along this roadway. Stipulation No. 6 will ensure that access to the site
is maintained along a minor collector street, and not a local street accessed by
residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Conformance to the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant is not
recommended by staff in order to allow additional flexibility to the applicant in
incorporating additional residential units as part of this development during the
site plan review process up to 12.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: 3 Engineering
Page 372
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
6. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict three types of buildings with various
architectural features such as pitched roofs, windows of various sizes, front
patios and four-sided architecture. The conceptual building elevations proposed
depict a maximum height of two stories and 25 feet to the mid-point between top
of peak and eaves.
Staff is recommending a stipulation to require building elevations to incorporate a
variety of colors, materials and architectural features. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1, in addition to requiring a minimum of 25 percent of building
elevations oriented towards 36th Street and Esteban Park, to provide accent
materials that exhibit quality and durability in order to ensure that the buildings
on this site remain in good condition into the future.
Stipulation No. 7 recommends language that requires an entryway for individual
residential units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park in order to promote
the use of these areas by residents and to “place eyes on the street” (and on the
park) to promote safety.
Conceptual Front 4-plex Building Elevation, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 373
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Conceptual Front 5-plex Building Elevation Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
7. Entryway and Wall Enhancements
The development proposes a main vehicular entryway along 36th Street, a minor
collector public street, which connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street. In
order to promote a sense of place for future residents, Stipulation No. 8
recommends that the primary entrance to the development along 36th Street
incorporate several uniquely identifying elements such as pedestrian paths,
landscaped median plus entryway, and decorative driveway surfaces.
Furthermore, Stipulation No. 9 requires open view fencing or a combination of
maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing be located
along Esteban Park in order to enhance visibility to this open space. In addition,
Stipulation No. 10 recommends that any perimeter walls visible from public
streets or Esteban Park shall include material and textural differences for visual
interest and contribute an enhanced image to the surrounding community.
Page 374
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Conceptual Entryway Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Conceptual Entryway Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 375
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
8. Open Space and Amenities
The conceptual site plan depicts various open space areas distributed
throughout the development for future residents to enjoy. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 11 to require several amenities distributed throughout the
development including:
x Swimming pool and clubhouse;
x Two picnic areas, each with one barbeque grill, shade ramada and a
picnic table;
x Four benches distributed internally throughout the development, except
that one bench shall be located within close proximity to 36th Street;
x Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet;
x Community garden areas totaling a minimum of 1,000 square feet and
containing a tool library, irrigation and one bench or seating feature;
These amenities will promote the health of future residents by providing
recreational opportunities through various activities, allowing the enjoyment of
sunlight, and having a communal space that enables social interactions while
growing food.
Stipulation No. 12 recommended by staff, requires that a minimum of 50 percent
shade is provided in open space areas, including amenity and seating areas, in
addition to having open space areas covered by vegetative ground cover. This
will ensure that pedestrians can enjoy natural shade and visually-pleasing
“green” open areas.
Conceptual Amenity Area Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 376
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
9. Pedestrian Circulation
The conceptual site plan depicts various pedestrian connections throughout the
development. Stipulation No. 13 recommends that internal pedestrian paths are
shaded a minimum of 75 percent in order to promote walkability within the site by
cooling walking areas. Stipulation No. 14 recommends that a system of
pedestrian paths are provided and incorporates the following elements:
x Direct connection to the 36th Street sidewalk from residential units
adjacent to the public street;
x Two pedestrian paths connecting the site to the 36th Street sidewalk;
x Pedestrian-scale illumination of the site from east to west in order to have
a central pedestrian path where residents throughout the development
can walk to and be connected to the primary entry area;
x Alternative paving material for pedestrian paths where these cross
vehicular drives;
x Connections to and between residential dwellings, active open space
areas, amenity facilities and the sidewalk along 36th Street;
10. 36th Street Enhancements
The conceptual site plan shows a significant portion of this development adjacent
to 36th Street, which connects Southern Avenue (south) with Esteban Park
(north). Furthermore, the terminus of 36th Street is also the junction of two
proposed multi-use trails, Esteban Park and the old San Francisco Canal. These
circumstances presented an opportunity to activate the 36th Street frontage
along this development with several enhancements as described below.
Conceptual Rendering with Planning and Development Department annotations,
Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 377
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 15 that pertains to a pedestrian node and
amenity area located at the terminus of the 36th Street cul-de-sac, at the
northern portion of this development. This stipulation requires several
enhancements to promote activity within this portion of the site, adjacent to 36th
Street and Esteban Park, beyond what is required as part of Stipulation No. 11,
in order to promote a sense of place, recreation and activity, and to create a
safer environment. Several enhancements within this pedestrian node/amenity
area include:
x Two benches or seating features;
x Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”);
x Amenity area that includes either or/combination of a community garden,
art feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or
other uniquely identifying features; and
x A landscaped accent area with plants that will maintain a constant bloom
throughout the year.
Stipulation No. 16 as recommended by staff, will require a shaded detached
sidewalk along 36th Street with trees and shrubs to create an aesthetically
pleasing environment that creates a sense of safety by separating cars and
pedestrians. The trees located within this landscape strip will shade and cool the
sidewalk and promote walking by pedestrian along 36th Street.
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. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to provide trees and
enhance shade within the development.
Staff is recommending stipulations for enhanced landscaping and shaded
sidewalks along the perimeter property lines as follows:
x Fifty-percent two-inch caliper, forty-percent three-inch caliper and ten-
percent four-inch caliper trees within the required landscape setbacks
(Stipulation No. 4);
x Fifty-percent of open space areas are to be shaded (Stipulation No. 12);
Page 378
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
x Internal pedestrian paths are to be shaded a minimum of 75 percent via
architectural shade or trees at maturity (Stipulation No. 13);
x The sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached and shaded a minimum
of 75 percent with three-inch caliper trees (Stipulation No. 16).
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. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by requiring a direction connection
from residential units to 36th Street, where these units are adjacent. In addition,
the stipulations recommended by staff address shaded detached sidewalk along
36th Street and a system of shaded internal pedestrian thoroughfares to promote
walkability, as described previously.
A bicycle repair station at the 36th Street cul-de-sac terminus and a bicycle u-
racks within each vehicular access point to the development will further promote
the use of alternative transportation by future residents.
13. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The proposed conceptual site plan or application
materials do not indicate whether recycling facilities will be made available to
residents.
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 a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
Page 379
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
more sustainable fashion.
Stipulation No. 5 would allow the developer to construct up to 12.50 dwelling
units per gross acre on the site, up to 230 dwelling units. The proposed site plan
submitted by the applicant depicts 192 condominiums or townhomes on the
subject site. If this development is approved, it would allow a new type of
housing product in the area and new housing opportunities for existing and new
residents to the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
15. As of the writing of this report, staff received three letters in support and one
letter with concerns about the development. The letter of concern cited issues
with the construction of more homes in District 8, an area with lots of youth in
distress. The three letters in support cited reasons such as land use compatibility
with the existing area, appropriate scale, high-quality development, and access
to healthy food via the community garden amenity on site.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
16. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalk via the most direct
route. Also, comments were provided to recommend alternative paving material
where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, and providing a minimum of 75
percent shade along pedestrian paths, including public sidewalks. These
comments are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 8, 13, 14, and 16. Stipulation No.
18 which addresses traffic calming measures at points of ingress or egress to the
site, was also recommended by staff in order to promote the safety of
pedestrians traveling along 36th Street.
17. The Street Transportation Department provided comments pertaining to multi-
use trail alignments envisioned within the site, pedestrian pathways connecting
the site to Esteban Park and bicycle infrastructure to promote multimodal
transportation. The multi-use trail which crosses the subject site east to west is
no longer being required by the Parks and Recreation Department to be
constructed within this site as there is a strip of land (San Francisco Canal) that
divides the subject site and Esteban Park, where the trail presently ends. Direct
pedestrian access from the subject site to Esteban Park was not recommended
as there is a strip of land (San Francisco Canal) that divides the site and Esteban
Park. Furthermore, private connections to public parks are typically not allowed
by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Bicycle infrastructure, including a bicycle repair station is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 15 and 17. Additional comments from the Street Transportation
Page 380
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Department included right-of-way dedication and completion of the cul-de-sac
along 36th Street, undergrounding or relocation of existing irrigation facilities,
and other general street improvement requirements. These comments are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 19 through 22.
18. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. Furthermore, that an
avigation easement is dedicated to the City of Phoenix as this property is within
the PHX International Airport traffic pattern airspace and seeking noise sensitive
land use. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 23 and 24.
19. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
In further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office, it was determined
that the Phase I testing conducted on the subject site by the applicant does not
warrant additional archaeological testing. However, in the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities
must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly
assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.
20. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire
Code with Phoenix Amendments. 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 Fire Code. Lastly, it was
referenced that a fire apparatus access road needs to be provided to the site for
adequate access.
21. The Water Services Departments commented that the property has existing
water and sewer mains that can potentially serve the development. However,
capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety of
factors. Furthermore, the City intends to provide water and sewer service,
requirements and assurances for which are determined during the site plan
review process. For any given property, water and sewer requirements may vary
over time to be less or more restrictive depending on the status of the City’s
water and sewer infrastructure. Both water and sewer mains exist along 36th
Street.
22. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Page 381
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
OTHER
23. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. As stipulated, the requested R-3 zoning is consistent with surrounding land uses
and will allow for an appropriate transition between single-family residential uses,
a public park, and commerce park development.
2. This proposed development provides a new housing option in the area that is
consistent with surrounding developments and the goals of the Esteban Park
Area Plan (EPAP).
3. The development, as stipulated, will improve connectivity in the area and
activates the 36th Street and Esteban Park frontages.
Stipulations
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public park, shall
contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
material that exhibits quality and durability.
c. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such
as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and
location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
Page 382
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings adjacent or oriented
toward single-family residential homes not part of this development.
4. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards, as described
below and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, shall
be planted where residential units are adjacent or oriented towards single-family
residential homes not a part of this development;
b. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings,
shall be utilized unless otherwise stated;
c. 50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-inch caliper
trees shall be utilized;
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity;
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a density of 12.50 dwelling units per gross acre.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to the site along
36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular ingress and egress, or
limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a low wall not
exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance, plus oriented towards
the public street or public park, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the public
sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the development.
b. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular entryway
Page 383
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided on both sides of
the entryway into the development. The landscaped accent areas shall provide a
visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal
interest and 75 percent live cover.
c. A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally within
the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a minimum of three
drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant, ornamental, flowering shrubs to
provide a minimum 75 percent live cover. Twenty five percent of the required live
cover may be ground cover plants.
d. The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing or a
combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a minimum,
distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a picnic table.
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one bench
located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
f. Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet that will
each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or seating feature.
Page 384
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
12. Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity and seating
areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs, grasses, or groundcover
plants), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using architectural shade
and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual dwelling units
adjacent to this street.
b. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting to the
sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections along vehicular
entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a pathway
connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing through a central
amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings;
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas;
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street;
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot pedestrian seating node and
amenity area along the most northern portion of the development adjacent to the western
edge of 36th Street (future cul-de-sac portion) to include the following elements at a
minimum, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Two benches or seating features;
Page 385
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
b. Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden, art
feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or other
uniquely identifying features;
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-of-way,
planted and maintained with at least three plant materials including a series of
annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom throughout the year;
16. The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of ingress /
egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the public sidewalks, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-foot half-
street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 386
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
20. The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or relocated
outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish
appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or
land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
22. 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.
23. The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in
order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
April 29, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 6, 2021 (2 page)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped February 4, 2021 (3 pages)
Community Correspondence (5 pages)
Page 387
WIER AVE
32ND PL
CHIPMAN RD
R-3 IND.PK.
35TH ST
33RD ST
MOBILE LN
South Phoenix Village
and Target Area B ATLANTA AVE
Design Overlay Distr
ATLANTA WAY
38TH PL
ROESER RD
CP/GCP *
Z-1-19
* 37TH ST 39TH ST
CP/GCP *
IND.PK.
Z-4-20
R1-6 GROVE ST
CP/BP *
Z-54-89
LA SALLE ST
CP/BP *
Z-35-00
R-3A *
Z-42-02 S-1
CP/GCP* CP/GCP*
R-5 * Z-23-20 Z-116-00
Z-189-05
AVE
ERN WAYLAND DR
UTH
32ND ST
SO
OLD
34TH PL
R-5 *
Z-189-05 CP/GCP*
-2 * R-5
35TH PL
S-1
36TH ST
C-1* Z-11-90
8-87
CP/BP *
R1-6
Z-94-94
Z-69-08
MUA *
Z-150-99 CP/BP*
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District Z-11-98
SOUTHERN AVE
MUA
C-2
38TH ST
HGT/WVR *
Z-7-00 S-1 PUD * S-1 C-2 S-1 MUA* Z-30-97
Z-14-01
Z-8-19
7TH AVE
Miles
I 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST
I-10
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-8-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/5/2021
FROM:
R1-6 ( 18.41 a.c.)
Z-8-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
18.41 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D-10
TO: R-3 ( 18.41 a.c.)
QS 3-35
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 97 119
R-3 267 320
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 388
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-8-21.mxd
WIER AVE
32ND PL
CHIPMAN RD
R-3 IND.PK.
35TH ST
33RD ST
MOBILE LN
South Phoenix Village
and Target Area B ATLANTA AVE
Design Overlay Distr
ATLANTA WAY
38TH PL
ROESER RD
CP/GCP *
Z-1-19
* 37TH ST 39TH ST
CP/GCP *
IND.PK.
Z-4-20
R1-6 GROVE ST
CP/BP *
Z-54-89
LA SALLE ST
CP/BP *
Z-35-00
R-3A *
Z-42-02 S-1
CP/GCP* CP/GCP*
R-5 * Z-23-20 Z-116-00
Z-189-05
AVE
ERN WAYLAND DR
UTH
32ND ST
SO
OLD
34TH PL
R-5 *
Z-189-05 CP/GCP*
-2 * R-5
35TH PL
S-1
36TH ST
C-1* Z-11-90
8-87
CP/BP *
R1-6
Z-94-94
Z-69-08
MUA *
Z-150-99 CP/BP*
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District Z-11-98
SOUTHERN AVE
MUA
C-2
38TH ST
HGT/WVR *
Z-7-00 S-1 PUD * S-1 C-2 S-1 MUA* Z-30-97
Z-14-01
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Z-8-19
7TH AVE
Miles
I 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST
I-10
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-8-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/5/2021
FROM:
R1-6 ( 18.41 a.c.)
Z-8-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
18.41 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D-10
TO: R-3 ( 18.41 a.c.)
QS 3-35
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 97 119
R-3 267 320
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 389
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-8-21.mxd
Page 390
Page 391
: < : 9 : 9 ?
V! S WX YZS SSD#SJuuj S SSD#SJuuj
06 3 06 3
P#)"
04 ,
NF"Qmgu
0* *
3
P#F#Qmsgu
,1 *
3
M"F#;sI ST U
`quuz
,0 *
,* 6
[SA& P$F$Qmsgu
O$F%QmgGR
6 *
2 0
; ? ; ?
Page 392
: 9 ? : ?
_#\Juuj SSD"SJuuj
06 3 06 3
T U S M%F%
05 ,
* *
0
3
P"F#Qmtgu
]^B
-1 *
[SA' `quuz
*
,0
P#F#@
6 *
0 0
@
Kcaqh8 .(7 / +
;usdwi|i JuujPmqi @zb Qm|l
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir Qlm|i Qn|lbsgQm|lu~}L|~ddu Jiiq{
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir Cmkl|@xb Qm|lbsgQm|lu~|L|~dde Jiiq{
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir :~zs|Fxbski Qo|lbsgQm|lu~}L|~fu Jiiq{
Ei|bq=s|z;bsuv
>s|zbsg@bzbki
B D B A A D G
T%+&YQ||m YZ
[ U&+%
4: 7 % 4:
U&+&3s
49 .
I
J/ / / 0 / / J/ / / 0 0 / / J/ / // 0 / / J/ / / 0 0 / / J/ / // 0 /
bx ^ T%+& ;r
49.
% %
T'M( Wrzj| T(M' Wr{j|
\]Y
4 , , % 4,,
U&+&3s T%M% T&M% Wrzj|
.5 > % .6,
%
7
7
dnv||~
Y
7
T%M& C2zPYZ
[ % .4 ,
., : %
T(M' Wrzj|
T(M'
%
4
4
%
4
%
@
% : ,
%
G(G'
, ",
w Ga'G(
$# _`Y`_Y
V , ,
)
G E H H G E C C
Page 393
G G B A
^
c&^Q||m \]^c&^Q||m
U&+& %
48 . %
!%
%%
"%
%
% 4 , , %
#%
% % T&M% Wr{j|
% .6,
4zjGv||~
% .4 ,
$%
YT%M& H T&M% WrjNX
% :, % : ,
4 4
o4 %
Y\]Y
G(G'
, ",
\]Y\]Y
G'G(
, ,
H C C H
Rgevk? 1*= .!-
C|zhll Q||mTrvl H~f WrqDf~uH~fGfhrf
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly Wqrl " WsqfzjWrq| S hh| Qllv
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly KrpqHf WrqfzjWrq| S hh| Qllv
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly B ~zMfzpl WtqfzjWrq| S i| Qllv
LlfvFz~Cfz|} Df~uHf
Df~uB~|zlWrzj|
Ez~fzjHf~fplD||~ OfrzljDf~uTlfv
6 3 6 3 3
O OOA!OGpp]
I C!4d ':
-0 % (:
%&
)*: +:
QV!QGpp] RSQ V!QGpp]
,: ':
$: -- 1 -- 1
K#C"Mdo[p}
': -$ $ ': -$ $
JC!4d . / O JC d K!C Mdn[p}
(: ': ': %. $
/
1:
/
1: OW^kpps
TUOW^lpps
2
K!C!5nF?O OU
P 3: ': &- $ ': %- $
%$ 1 (: 0: -:
I"C#6pps
K#C"Mdn[p}
! "":#:
': 1 $ ': 1 $
- _- - q `-
4 5:
6:
; 9"9"
$ $
7 8 :
: 2 9 7 5 5 7 9
Page 394
3 3 3
QR V!QGpp]
iw b
' ' ' f( ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' *) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) = -1 /
L + + > > + + + > +> + + > + +> + > + + +> > + + + > +> + +
O OOA#OGpp] RSQ V!QGpp]
': -- 1 ': -- 1
K!C Md[DN
': -$ $ ': -$ $
/
,
9:
K!C Mdo[p}
': %.$
'
-n[9kpps
&- $
':
-n[9lppt
&- $
': O JC!:
K!C Md[DN
':
- -
1 $
1 $
5 9
5pnYu\y\ Gpp]Idl\ :sX~ Mdyc6Xsj:sX~9XxYdX
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m Mcdy\ MgycXn[Mdycp{zHy{YYp G\|\lx
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m @dacy:tX~ MdycXn[Mdycp{yHy{YYp G\|\lx
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m 3{snyCtXna\MhycXn[Mdycp{zHy{Zp G\|\lx
B\yXl8nys~5Xnpr~ 6Xsj:vX~
6Xsj3spn\Mdn[p}
7nys~Xn[:XsXa\ 6ppsx EXdny\[6XsjI\Xl
From: jade@jadestorm.com
To: ben@witheymorris.com
Cc: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-8-21) Hearing March 4, 2021
Date: Monday, March 1, 2021 6:35:56 PM
Hi Benjamin,
I previously left you a voice mail requesting your return call. I definitely will not be able to
attend the up-coming meeting, and wish your client the best.
My concerns have not changed when it comes to building more homes in District 8, a high
youth distressed boundary for Mir`Ra IMAGE.
Should your client get the approval from the City of Phoenix Zoning Officers to rezone this
already distressed area, with many registered sex offenders and medical marijuana entities
do they have a youth-based neighborhood organization already in place to support?
If not, will your client be willing to make a monthly tax-deductible contribution to support
my efforts and vision for Mir`Ra IMAGE?
Once again, the neighborhood organization is a registered non-profit private foundation to
help inspire our young adults to reflect leadership, while educating the community towards
a sustainable environment. Bringing on more young adults and youth to South Phoenix and
not supporting this local neighborhood organizations will not be in the best interest as I am
already struggling to help keep them focused on their education and a healthier lifestyle.
Warmest regards, Jadestorm
"Where there is love there is everlasting life!"
Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen
CEO/ President/ Founder
SWIYYAH, LLC and Mir`Ra IMAGE, Inc.
Jadestorm.com [jadestorm.com]
Mirraimage.org [mirraimage.org]
9307 S. 51st Ave #1160
Laveen, Arizona 85339
Cell 480-580-7653
Google Voice 480-253-9011
Mir`Ra IMAGE is a 501(C)( 3) Private Foundation.
Community Resource | Green Fashion | Organic Entertainment | Students Opportunity for
Success
Our goal is to focus on inspiring young adults, entrepreneurs and the community to reflect
leadership towards sustainable fashion and entertainment.
© 2006-2021 All rights reserved. CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING
Page 395
The information contained in this communication, including its attachments, may contain
confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom it is
addressed. The information contained in this communication may also be protected by legal
privilege, federal law or other applicable law.
Copyright and any other intellectual property rights contained herein are the sole property of
Swiyyah, LLC, Mir`Ra IMAGE, Inc. If you have received this message in error, please notify
Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen at Jade@jadestorm.com immediately by return e-mail and delete the
message, without drawing any copy.
Page 396
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
William Bayless
Senior Vice President 2575 East Camelback Road
Suite 500
CBRE, Inc. Phoenix, AZ 85016-4290
Industrial Properties
602.735.5652 Tel
602.735.5655 Fax
bill.bayless@cbre.com
www.cbre.com
March 23, 2021
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
South Mountain Village Planner
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: SoMo at Esteban – Z-8-21/GPA-SM-1-21
Dear Mr. Bojórquez-Gaxiola:
I am a neighboring property owner and I am writing in support of the proposed SoMo at Esteban
townhome development. My property is located at 3601 E. La Salle Street, right across the street from
the subject site.
I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the development team and review the conceptual plans for the
proposed townhome community. SoMo at Esteban is an attractive, well-designed community that will
provide an excellent transition between the industrial/commerce uses in our business park and the
single-family homes west of the site. Their proposal is the perfect missing piece to tie in with the rest
of the community and provide connectivity to Esteban Park.
This proposal is the kind of smart, contextually appropriate development the City needs, and I am in
full support of Avenue North’s applications.
Sincerely,
Bill Bayless
Senior Vice President
Page 397
John Poland, 5715 S 34th Place
Page 398
5 April 2021
200 W Washington St 3rd Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
RE: Letter of Support for Somo at Esteban Park -- Rezoning Application # is Z-8-21 and Minor General
Plan Amendment GPA-SM-1-21.
TigerMountain Foundation, a South Phoenix-based nonprofit corporation, is pleased to submit this letter of
support for the Avenue North “Somo at Esteban Park” project that sits on approximately 18.4 acres located
north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive, Phoenix, Arizona.
TigerMountain Foundation seeks to empower the people of South Phoenix by building flourishing community
gardens and through our multi-ethnic and inter-generational Garden and Landscape/Agriscaping Initiatives we
mentor participants through an active and healthy eating lifestyle, a Personal Strategy Roadmap that encourages
goal completion and transitions folks into workforce development skills that prepare them to earn a living wage.
In partnership with several local and national partners, we have implemented two (2) community gardens
within the South Mountain Village; (i) Spaces of Opportunity located at Vineyard Road and 15th Avenue; and,
(ii) Garden of Tomorrow located at 18th Place and Broadway Road. Among other objectives, these gardens seek
to provide healthy, affordable, accessible food and promote the diverse South Mountain Village culture.
We have had an opportunity to learn about the proposed project which will include a resident garden and access
to Esteban Park. In addition to all of the objectives that our organization would seek to achieve (i.e. access to
healthy food), the proposed resident garden amenity is a unique opportunity. This will provide the project
residents with a central and meaningful gathering place that encourages a sense of community and pride.
The proposed resident garden provides a unique opportunity to instill a sense of place, create meaningful access
to healthy food and promote active lifestyles. The goals for the resident garden are well aligned with our goals
and objectives for the larger South Phoenix community and is a great opportunity for other partnerships to join
and align and strengthen the overall community. For these reasons, we strongly support the project
Darren J. Chapman, CEO - Founder - TigerMountain Foundation
darren.chapman@TigerMountainFoundation.org Cell | (213) 300-8846
TigerMountain Foundation | 3146 E Wier Avenue, Suite 31 | Phoenix, AZ 85040
www.TigerMountainFoundation.org AZ Qualified Tax Credit Charity # 20127
Page 399
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-8-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request From R1-6
Request To R-3
Proposed Use Multifamily residential townhome community
(condominiums)
Location Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of
36th Street and Wayland Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval per staff recommendation presented in the staff
report with modification to Stipulation Nos. 5 and 15.
VPC Vote 11-0 Motion passes; with members Aldama, Alvarez,
Brownell, Busching, Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard,
M. Smith, Viera and Daniels in favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
8 requests to speak in support from members of the public were received regarding
cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. Two other members of the public registered
their support but did not wish to speak.
Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation for
companion cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. He discussed the location of the
site, noting surrounding land uses including a public park, various schools and
commercial services including a grocery store and urban farm. He discussed the
existing General Plan Land Use map designation and the requested Land Use map
amendment. He discussed the surrounding zoning districts in the area, Esteban
Park Area Plan, and other policy documents including the General Plan. The
conceptual site plan was shown, indicating the vehicular access points, open
space, perimeter landscape areas, amenities, density proposed and shown, and lot
coverage. The conceptual building elevations and materials were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation on the case and
describing the proposed stipulations, as presented in the staff report.
Andrew Biskind, with Avenue North, introduced himself and the project.
Benjamin Tate, with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and discussed the
subject site and site conditions. An overview of the proposal and site plan was
Page 400
provided, followed by renderings of the proposed development. He discussed
community open space areas and the pedestrian seating node located north of the
site. An overview of neighborhood outreach including adjacent neighbors,
businesses, Parks and Recreation Department and other community groups. The
three community benefits were addressed per the General Plan, including goals
and policies. Various letters of support were received, and an overview of this
project addressed various priorities listed by the South Mountain VPC. An example
of another project along 16th Street was provided and concluded the presentation
by requesting approval of both cases.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• Have you considered imposing a limit on the number of homes that can be
owned by investors as part of this development?
• Will VA and FHA loans be available?
• Have you considered changing the term “community garden” to “garden
area” referenced in the stipulations?
Mr. Biskind responded that it is difficult to restrict qualified buyers but do intend to
prohibit short-term rentals in this community.
Mr. Tate responded that they can consider CC&R restrictions that could limit the
number of units owned by a single individual or entity within this community. The
ability to offer FHA and VA loans will be applied for and is intended to be provided.
Kassandra Alvarez asked for clarification on the lighting provided within this
development.
Mr. Tate responded that pedestrian-scale lighting is proposed along pedestrian
paths, including along Esteban Park.
Kay Shepard asked the following questions:
• What is the density proposed?
• How many uncovered parking stalls are provided?
• Why are palm trees proposed within landscape areas?
• What is the size of each residential unit?
Mr. Tate responded that 192 units are proposed and that there was a discrepancy
on the number of units within this development. Excess parking stalls are
distributed throughout the site, and palm trees were conceptually depicted but may
not be ultimately chosen. The community will be comprised of 2 and 3-bedroom
units.
Mr. Marchuk asked if there is a community benefit agreement proposed? And why
the R-2 zoning district was not selected if the project can fit within that density
permitted?
Page 401
Mr. Tate responded that no community benefit agreement is proposed at this time,
and the R-2 zoning district was not selected originally since the density in the site
plan changed following a revision during the rezoning process.
Mr. Bojorquez responded that the R-2 zoning district allows the envisioned project
density but could require a landscape setback modification.
Mr. Tate responded that a site plan revision at this moment would be very difficult
due to all the engineering that has been done so far.
Ms. Busching asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the number of units
referenced in Stipulation No. 5 to not exceed 192 units total. Also, adding the word
“public” to Stipulation No. 15, in order to allow the pedestrian seating node to be
publicly accessible.
Mr. Tate responded that he would support those proposed stipulation modifications.
Gene Holmerud asked for clarification on perimeter setbacks and access along
36th Street.
Mr. Tate discussed the orientation of units and street improvements along 36th
Street.
Mr. Holmerud stated that bike lockers are needed and discussed the building
elevations proposed.
Mr. Tate discussed the bicycle amenities provided within the pedestrian seating
node.
Muriel Smith asked for clarification on dustproofing requirements along Esteban
Park.
Mr. Tate responded that there were ongoing discussions with Council District 8 to
consider relocating the green waste area along Esteban Park to another location.
Chairwoman Daniels asked the following questions:
• Will this project change from lot sales to unit rentals in the future?
• What will be the HOA fees?
• What is the price-point for these new homes?
Mr. Tate responded that the community will not change from lot sales to rentals. It
is too early at this time to project HOA maintenance costs and actual project costs.
The price of the homes is projected to be in the mid-$300,000 range.
Page 402
Chairwoman Daniels is pleased to encourage homeownership in this community.
She opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Dr. Bruce McHenry works in South Mountain Community College (SMCC) and
discussed the classroom engagement by the applicant, Andrew Biskind and Ryan,
who reached out to him years prior and provided a presentation to students at
SMCC regarding entrepreneurship. He supports the developer and this new project.
Darren Chapman, with Tiger Mountain Foundation, introduced himself and
discussed his 15 years of experience with community gardens. He was contacted
by the developer who is engaged with the community. His experience will help keep
up and ensure that the community garden can last. He supports the developer, who
has been amazing to work with.
Cristian Perez, soccer coach with a soccer club at Esteban Park, introduced
himself and discussed the reutilization of the current green waste area,
transforming this into usable open space. He likes the project’s architecture and
discussed how the developer has approached him. The project will allow for first-
time home buyers and others to continue to live in South Phoenix and is pleased
with this development.
Jimmy Scroggins is a motivation speaker and is pleased to see this community
develop. He discussed the youth in the area and applauds the type of development
that adds value to the Esteban Park area for the South Phoenix community.
Timothy Hills, Nate, Wendy and Chris registered to speak in support of these two
cases but were not connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.
Committee member Lee Coleman left the meeting at 9:15pm bringing the quorum
to 11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for discussion or a motion on both cases.
MOTION – Z-8-21-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to approve case Z-8-21-8 per the staff
recommendation in the staff report with modifications to Stipulation Nos. 5 and
15. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.
APPROVED STIPULATIONS:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
Page 403
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public park, shall
contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
material that exhibits quality and durability.
c. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such
as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and
location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings adjacent or oriented
toward single-family residential homes not part of this development.
4. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards, as described
below and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, shall
be planted where residential units are adjacent or oriented towards single-family
residential homes not a part of this development;
b. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings,
shall be utilized unless otherwise stated;
c. 50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-inch caliper
trees shall be utilized;
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity;
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a MAXIMUM density of 192 DWELLING UNITS 12.50
dwelling units per gross acre.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to the site along
36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular ingress and egress, or
limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 404
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a low wall not
exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance, plus oriented towards
the public street or public park, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the public
sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the development.
b. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular entryway
with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided on both sides of
the entryway into the development. The landscaped accent areas shall provide a
visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal
interest and 75 percent live cover.
c. A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally within
the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a minimum of three
drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant, ornamental, flowering shrubs to
provide a minimum 75 percent live cover. Twenty five percent of the required live
cover may be ground cover plants.
d. The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing or a
combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a minimum,
distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a picnic table.
Page 405
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one bench
located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
f. Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet that will
each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or seating feature.
12. Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity and seating
areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs, grasses, or groundcover
plants), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using architectural shade
and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual dwelling units
adjacent to this street.
b. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting to the
sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections along vehicular
entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a pathway
connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing through a central
amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings;
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas;
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street;
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
pedestrian seating node and amenity area along the most northern portion of the
development adjacent to the western edge of 36th Street (future cul-de-sac portion) to
Page 406
include the following elements at a minimum, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Two benches or seating features;
b. Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden, art
feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or other
uniquely identifying features;
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-of-way,
planted and maintained with at least three plant materials including a series of
annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom throughout the year;
16. The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of ingress /
egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the public sidewalks, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 407
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-foot half-
street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
20. The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or relocated
outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish
appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or
land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
22. 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.
23. The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in
order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
During the May 11, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting,
committee member Trent Marchuk asked staff whether the conceptual site plan
submitted by the applicant and attached to the staff report, could be developed using
the R-2 (Multifamily Residence) District. Staff responded that a landscape setback
modification could be required.
After a closer evaluation of the conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant, date
stamped April 6, 2021, staff has determined that the proposed site plan meets the
development standards of the R-2 zoning district. The site plan standards are provided
below:
Page 408
R-2 – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards R-2 Requirements proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 18.41 acres
Total Maximum 193 units, 221 with bonus 192 units (Met)
Number of Units
Maximum Density 10.5 dwelling units per acre, 12 10.43 dwelling units per
with bonus. acre (Met)
Maximum Lot 45% 28% (Met)
Coverage
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet for first Maximum of 2 stories and
Height 150 feet; 1-foot in 5-foot 25 feet. (Met)
increase to 48 feet high and 4
stories.
There shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten feet
of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased
one foot for each additional one
foot of building setback to the
maximum permitted height.
MINIMUM PERIMETER STANDARDS
Adjacent to a public 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
street (36th Street)
Other perimeter North: 10 feet North: 15 feet (Met)
property lines (North,
South and West) South: 10 feet South: 10 feet (Met)
West: 10 feet West: 15 feet (Met)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides and Rear North: 5 feet North: 5 feet (Met)
(North, South and
West property lines) South: 5 feet South: 5 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open 5% of gross site area 6.4% (Met)
Space
Page 409
Report
Approximately 100 Feet North of the Northwest Corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive (Ordinance G-6872)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-8-21-8
and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) to allow a multifamily residential townhome community. This file is
a companion case to GPA-SM-1-21-8 and should be heard immediately following.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 18.41 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome community (condominiums)
Owner: 36th Street & Southern, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
11, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with modifications
by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 5242, 5252, 5424, 5814 and 5822 S. 36th St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 353
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
AF
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-8-21-8) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
follows:
T
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
SECTION 1. The zoning of an 18.41-acre site located approximately 100
R
feet north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive in a portion of
Section 25, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A”, is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3”
D
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 354
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent
materials and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as
brick, stone, colored textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative
and aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public
c.
AF
park, shall contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or
another exterior accent material that exhibits quality and durability.
All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation
T
in window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings
adjacent or oriented toward single-family residential homes not part of this
development.
4.
R The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards,
as described below and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
D b.
c.
groupings, shall be planted where residential units are adjacent or
oriented towards single-family residential homes not a part of this
development.
Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent
groupings, shall be utilized unless otherwise stated.
50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-
inch caliper trees shall be utilized.
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover,
shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity.
Page 355
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a maximum density of 192 dwelling units.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to
the site along 36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular
ingress and egress, or limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only,
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide
an entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a
low wall not exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance,
AF
plus oriented towards the public street or public park, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the
following elements, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department:
a.
b. T
Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the
public sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the
development.
The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular
entryway with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided
on both sides of the entryway into the development. The landscaped
R
c.
accent areas shall provide a visually unique character with drought-
tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live
cover.
A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally
D d.
within the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a
minimum of three drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant,
ornamental, flowering shrubs to provide a minimum 75 percent live
cover. Twenty five percent of the required live cover may be ground
cover plants.
The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other than those used
to pave the parking surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing
or a combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view
fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 356
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element,
such as tile or stamped designs, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a
minimum, distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a
AF
picnic table.
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one
bench located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
12.
f.
T
Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet
that will each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or
seating feature.
Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity
and seating areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs,
grasses, or groundcover plants), as approved by the Planning and
13.
R
Development Department.
Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using
architectural shade and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
D
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as
described below and as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department:
a.
b.
Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual
dwelling units adjacent to this street.
The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths
connecting to the sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian
connections along vehicular entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a
pathway connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing
through a central amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
Page 357
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall
be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or
other pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings.
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas.
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street.
AF
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot publicly
accessible pedestrian seating node and amenity area along the most northern
portion of the development adjacent to the western edge of 36th Street (future
cul-de-sac portion) to include the following elements at a minimum, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a.
b.
T
Two benches or seating features.
Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area
of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed
to the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or
the ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.
R
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden,
art feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains,
or other uniquely identifying features.
D
16.
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-
of-way, planted and maintained with at least three plant materials
including a series of annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom
throughout the year.
The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and
planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
Page 358
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature
height of 24 inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of
the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
AF
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress / egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the
public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-
foot half-street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as
20.
21. T
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or
relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land
rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that
22. R
require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to
obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
D
23.
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.
The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to
Airport in order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of
the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
Page 359
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
26. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
AF
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July, 2021.
ATTEST:
T
____________________________City Clerk
________________________________
MAYOR
R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
D
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 360
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-8-21-8
A portion of Parcels E and G as shown on A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 48-60-61
BARTLETT-HEARD LANDS, recorded in Book 14 of Plats, Page 34, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona, located in the Southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 1
North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, being more
particularly described as follows;
BEGINNING at Northwest corner of FINAL PLAT FOR CARDENAS VILLAS @
YANCHE SUBDIVISION, recorded in Book 864 of Maps, Page 05, records of said
county; Thence North 07 Degrees 16 Minutes 44 Seconds West along the West line of
said Parcels E and G a distance of 499.84 feet to an angle point on the West line of said
AF
Parcel G; Thence North 50 Degrees 03 Minutes 07 Seconds East along the
Northwesterly line of said Parcel G a distance of 1213.65 feet to the centerline of South
36th Street; Thence South 00 Degrees 03 Minutes 56 Seconds East along said
centerline a distance of 1257.01 feet; Thence South 88 Degrees 48 Minutes 27
Seconds West along the North line of said FINAL PLAT FOR CARDENAS VILLAS @
YANCHE SUBDIVISION a distance of 868.72 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
T
The above described parcel contains 18.393 acres.
R
D
Page 361
Page 362
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning May 11, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(18.41 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(18.41 acres)
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential townhome
community (condominiums)
Location: Approximately 100 feet north of the
northwest corner of 36th Street and
Wayland Drive
Owner: 36th & Southern, LLC
Applicant / Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-SM-1-21-8): Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre
Minor
36th Street Collector 25-foot west half street
Street
Street Map Classification
San
Francisco Local Street 50-foot north and south half street
Drive
Page 363
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the acquisition of vacant,
underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate redevelopment, compatible with the
adjacent neighborhood character and adopted area plans.
The subject site is mostly vacant and underutilized with two single-family homes on nearly 20
acres. The proposed development would permit the construction of 192 condominium units or
townhomes on the site at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding land uses which are
predominantly single-family.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE ; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system, development
should be designed to include increased amenities for transit, pedestrian and bicyclists
such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale
lighting and way-finding.
Located at the junction of a minor collector street, planned multi-use trail and public park, the
proposal, as stipulated, will provide elements for both pedestrians and bicyclists to utilize in order
to promote walking and alternative transportation. These elements include shaded detached
sidewalks along 36th Street, shaded benches or seating elements, and a bicycle repair station at
the terminus of 36th Street within the development. Residential units adjacent to 36th Street and
Esteban Park will also be oriented towards these areas to promote safety via “eyes on the
street.”
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The development, as stipulated, provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful to local
conditions by transitioning commerce park uses east of 36th Street with single-family uses west
of 36th Street and adjacent to this development.
Page 364
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and
redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along the adjacent public
sidewalks, pedestrian paths connecting the development to adjacent streets and amenity areas.
This will help to encourage walking and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard
surfaces, thus cooling the micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP): See Background Item No. 4.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 11.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 12.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 13.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 14.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residential R1-6
North Esteban Park R1-6
South Single-family residential R1-6
Single-family residential and
East (across 36th Street) S-1 and Ind. Pk.
commerce park uses
West Single-family residential R1-6
Page 365
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
R-3 – Multifamily Residence District
(Average Lot Development Option)
Provisions on the proposed site
Standards R-3 Requirements
plan
Gross Acreage - 18.41 acres
Total Maximum Number of 267 units 192 units (Met)
Units
Maximum Density 14.5 dwelling units per acre 10.43 dwelling units per acre (Met)
Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 28% (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet. Maximum of 2 stories and 25 feet.
(Met)
There shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten
feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be
increased one foot for each
additional one foot of building
setback to the maximum
permitted height.
MINIMUM PERIMETER STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides (North and South North: 10 feet North: 23 feet (Met)
property lines)
South: 10 feet South: 21 feet (Met)
Rear (West property line) West: 15 feet West: 21 feet (Met)
Page 366
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides and Rear (North, North: 5 feet North: 5 feet (Met)
South and West property
lines) South: 5 feet South: 5 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% of gross site area 6.4% (Met)
Minimum Amenities 2 amenities required 3 amenities provided (Met)
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 1.5 parking spaces per 1 or 2 555 parking spaces provided.
bedroom unit, and 2 spaces (Met)
per 3 or more bedroom unit.
0.5 unreserved guest parking
spaces per 1 or 2 bedroom
unit, and 1.0 spaces per 3 or
more bedroom unit.
494 parking spaces required.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 18.41 acres located approximately 100 feet north of the
northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive from R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) for a condominium or
townhome community. The site is primarily vacant and underutilized with two
single-family detached homes across the 18.41 acre site.
In 1925, the site was subdivided as part of the Bartlett Heard Lands Lots 48-60-
61 subdivision which created 14 lots as part of a survey by Mr. Harry E. Jones. In
1960, the subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix from unincorporated
Maricopa County and zoned R1-6 under Ordinance No. G-449 in 1961. Historic
aerial imagery shows that the site was historically utilized for agricultural uses.
Page 367
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The surrounding area
contains a variety of
residential, commercial and
agricultural zoning districts
including S-1 (Ranch or
Farm Residence District),
R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District), R-3A
(Multifamily Residence
District), R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District), C-1
(Neighborhood Retail
District), Ind. Pk. (Industrial
Park District), and CP/GCP
(Commerce Park/General Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
Commerce Park). The Department
subject site is also adjacent
to Esteban Park, a public
park that serves the
surrounding uses.
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, thus a concurrent General Plan Amendment
case GPA-SM-1-21-8 proposes to change the land use map designation to
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre. North of the site is Esteban Park
designated as Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned. South and west of the site
are residential subdivisions designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. Also, west are two apartment complexes and a mobile home community
designated as Residential 10 to 15 and 15+ dwelling units per acre. East of the
subject site are various commerce park uses designed as Commerce/ Business
Park on the General Plan Land Use Map.
Page 368
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
The R-3 zoning requested is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land
Use Map designation per GPA-SM-1-21-8 and compatible with existing and
future envisioned land uses in the area.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
4. Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP)
The Esteban Park Area Plan (EPAP) was adopted in 2003 with the intent of
guiding future development in this area which has transitioned from large-lot
agricultural uses to a mixture of agricultural, commerce park and residential land
uses. The Esteban Park Area Plan is bounded by Roeser Road (north),
Southern Avenue (south), 36th Street (east) and 24th Street (west). At the
southeast corner of 32nd Street and Roeser Road, one can find Esteban Park, a
public park which was annexed into the City of Phoenix in the 1960s and which
serves as the only publicly accessible open space in the general area today.
Page 369
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
The EPAP seeks to accomplish
this vision through six goals
pertaining to:
1. Land Use Compatibility;
2. Urban Design;
3. Neighborhood
Preservation;
4. Transportation Safety;
5. Drainage;
6. Recreation Amenities;
The proposed development
furthers the goals of the EPAP by
assembling and redeveloping
three vacant parcels with a
residential use that is
appropriately located.
Goal 2, Urban Design, of the
EPAP outlines the importance of
incorporating elements of the
architectural history, character
and scale of the area into
development stipulations. The
design of the proposed EPAP aerial map with Planning and Development
townhomes includes pitched Department annotations, Source: Planning and
roofs, which are consistent with Development Department
the architectural history of the
area and surrounding residential
neighborhoods. Staff
recommends Stipulation No. 1 to
address enhancements in the
architecture, materials and colors
for building elevations, in order to
recognize the history of the area
and enhance the frontage along
Esteban Park and 36th Street.
Goal 2 of the EPAP also recommends height transitions in multifamily zoned
parcels adjacent to single-family residential. The Zoning Ordinance presently
contains a step-back provision applicable to multifamily developments where
Page 370
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
adjacent to single-family zoned properties. However, to promote permitted
building height consistency in the area, staff recommends Stipulation No. 2 to
limit the maximum building height permitted to two stories and 30 feet in case the
Average Lot development option is not utilized in the future, and to maintain the
compatibility from this development with adjacent single-family residential
neighborhoods. Furthermore, Stipulation No. 3 prohibits balconies on upper
floors of residential units from being adjacent or oriented towards single-family
developments, in order to protect privacy of adjacent neighborhoods.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 4 pertaining to enhanced landscaping
standards along perimeter setbacks to include evergreen trees, whose foliage
will remain intact year-round, to be placed where adjacent to single-family
neighborhoods that exist in the area to further buffer this development from
adjacent uses. A variety of trees sizes and ground cover material are also
recommended in order to promote shade, visually appealing landscaped areas
and to screen the site from adjacent uses. This is consistent with Goal 3 of the
EPAP which intends to preserve neighborhoods.
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 5 which limits the maximum density in this
development to 12.50 dwelling units per gross acre in order to maintain the
compatibility with surrounding land uses. The conceptual site plan provided by
the applicant depicts a density of 10.43 dwelling units per gross acre, thus this
stipulation allows for additional flexibility in incorporating additional residential
units during the site plan review process. This is consistent with Goal 3 of the
EPAP which intends to preserve neighborhoods and allow new land uses where
appropriate.
The Parks and Recreation Department was consulted regarding Esteban Park
and it was determined that no additional improvements would be necessary by
this development pertaining to Esteban Park.
PROPOSAL
5. Site Plan
The applicant is proposing 192 condominiums or townhomes, with both two-
and three-bedroom units, across multiple residential buildings distributed
throughout the subject site. All of the proposed buildings will be two stories,
under 30 feet in height. Multiple pedestrian and vehicular access points to the
subject site are proposed along 36th Street, with private vehicular drives
connecting individual unit garages and parking spaces. Two parking spaces are
proposed within each residential unit garage, with uncovered parking spaces
available throughout the site.
Page 371
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Staff is recommending Stipulation No. 6 to require that access to this
development is maintained along 36th Street, a minor collector street. The site
is adjacent to San Francisco Drive, a local street, but no access is proposed
access along this roadway. Stipulation No. 6 will ensure that access to the site
is maintained along a minor collector street, and not a local street accessed by
residents in the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Conformance to the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant is not
recommended by staff in order to allow additional flexibility to the applicant in
incorporating additional residential units as part of this development during the
site plan review process up to 12.5 dwelling units per gross acre.
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: 3 Engineering
Page 372
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
6. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict three types of buildings with various
architectural features such as pitched roofs, windows of various sizes, front
patios and four-sided architecture. The conceptual building elevations proposed
depict a maximum height of two stories and 25 feet to the mid-point between top
of peak and eaves.
Staff is recommending a stipulation to require building elevations to incorporate a
variety of colors, materials and architectural features. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1, in addition to requiring a minimum of 25 percent of building
elevations oriented towards 36th Street and Esteban Park, to provide accent
materials that exhibit quality and durability in order to ensure that the buildings
on this site remain in good condition into the future.
Stipulation No. 7 recommends language that requires an entryway for individual
residential units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park in order to promote
the use of these areas by residents and to “place eyes on the street” (and on the
park) to promote safety.
Conceptual Front 4-plex Building Elevation, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 373
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Conceptual Front 5-plex Building Elevation Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
7. Entryway and Wall Enhancements
The development proposes a main vehicular entryway along 36th Street, a minor
collector public street, which connects to Southern Avenue, an arterial street. In
order to promote a sense of place for future residents, Stipulation No. 8
recommends that the primary entrance to the development along 36th Street
incorporate several uniquely identifying elements such as pedestrian paths,
landscaped median plus entryway, and decorative driveway surfaces.
Furthermore, Stipulation No. 9 requires open view fencing or a combination of
maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing be located
along Esteban Park in order to enhance visibility to this open space. In addition,
Stipulation No. 10 recommends that any perimeter walls visible from public
streets or Esteban Park shall include material and textural differences for visual
interest and contribute an enhanced image to the surrounding community.
Page 374
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Conceptual Entryway Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Conceptual Entryway Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 375
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
8. Open Space and Amenities
The conceptual site plan depicts various open space areas distributed
throughout the development for future residents to enjoy. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 11 to require several amenities distributed throughout the
development including:
x Swimming pool and clubhouse;
x Two picnic areas, each with one barbeque grill, shade ramada and a
picnic table;
x Four benches distributed internally throughout the development, except
that one bench shall be located within close proximity to 36th Street;
x Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet;
x Community garden areas totaling a minimum of 1,000 square feet and
containing a tool library, irrigation and one bench or seating feature;
These amenities will promote the health of future residents by providing
recreational opportunities through various activities, allowing the enjoyment of
sunlight, and having a communal space that enables social interactions while
growing food.
Stipulation No. 12 recommended by staff, requires that a minimum of 50 percent
shade is provided in open space areas, including amenity and seating areas, in
addition to having open space areas covered by vegetative ground cover. This
will ensure that pedestrians can enjoy natural shade and visually-pleasing
“green” open areas.
Conceptual Amenity Area Rendering, Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 376
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
9. Pedestrian Circulation
The conceptual site plan depicts various pedestrian connections throughout the
development. Stipulation No. 13 recommends that internal pedestrian paths are
shaded a minimum of 75 percent in order to promote walkability within the site by
cooling walking areas. Stipulation No. 14 recommends that a system of
pedestrian paths are provided and incorporates the following elements:
x Direct connection to the 36th Street sidewalk from residential units
adjacent to the public street;
x Two pedestrian paths connecting the site to the 36th Street sidewalk;
x Pedestrian-scale illumination of the site from east to west in order to have
a central pedestrian path where residents throughout the development
can walk to and be connected to the primary entry area;
x Alternative paving material for pedestrian paths where these cross
vehicular drives;
x Connections to and between residential dwellings, active open space
areas, amenity facilities and the sidewalk along 36th Street;
10. 36th Street Enhancements
The conceptual site plan shows a significant portion of this development adjacent
to 36th Street, which connects Southern Avenue (south) with Esteban Park
(north). Furthermore, the terminus of 36th Street is also the junction of two
proposed multi-use trails, Esteban Park and the old San Francisco Canal. These
circumstances presented an opportunity to activate the 36th Street frontage
along this development with several enhancements as described below.
Conceptual Rendering with Planning and Development Department annotations,
Source: MOD Architecture + Planning
Page 377
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Staff recommends Stipulation No. 15 that pertains to a pedestrian node and
amenity area located at the terminus of the 36th Street cul-de-sac, at the
northern portion of this development. This stipulation requires several
enhancements to promote activity within this portion of the site, adjacent to 36th
Street and Esteban Park, beyond what is required as part of Stipulation No. 11,
in order to promote a sense of place, recreation and activity, and to create a
safer environment. Several enhancements within this pedestrian node/amenity
area include:
x Two benches or seating features;
x Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”);
x Amenity area that includes either or/combination of a community garden,
art feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or
other uniquely identifying features; and
x A landscaped accent area with plants that will maintain a constant bloom
throughout the year.
Stipulation No. 16 as recommended by staff, will require a shaded detached
sidewalk along 36th Street with trees and shrubs to create an aesthetically
pleasing environment that creates a sense of safety by separating cars and
pedestrians. The trees located within this landscape strip will shade and cool the
sidewalk and promote walking by pedestrian along 36th Street.
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. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to provide trees and
enhance shade within the development.
Staff is recommending stipulations for enhanced landscaping and shaded
sidewalks along the perimeter property lines as follows:
x Fifty-percent two-inch caliper, forty-percent three-inch caliper and ten-
percent four-inch caliper trees within the required landscape setbacks
(Stipulation No. 4);
x Fifty-percent of open space areas are to be shaded (Stipulation No. 12);
Page 378
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
x Internal pedestrian paths are to be shaded a minimum of 75 percent via
architectural shade or trees at maturity (Stipulation No. 13);
x The sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached and shaded a minimum
of 75 percent with three-inch caliper trees (Stipulation No. 16).
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. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by requiring a direction connection
from residential units to 36th Street, where these units are adjacent. In addition,
the stipulations recommended by staff address shaded detached sidewalk along
36th Street and a system of shaded internal pedestrian thoroughfares to promote
walkability, as described previously.
A bicycle repair station at the 36th Street cul-de-sac terminus and a bicycle u-
racks within each vehicular access point to the development will further promote
the use of alternative transportation by future residents.
13. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The proposed conceptual site plan or application
materials do not indicate whether recycling facilities will be made available to
residents.
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 a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
Page 379
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
more sustainable fashion.
Stipulation No. 5 would allow the developer to construct up to 12.50 dwelling
units per gross acre on the site, up to 230 dwelling units. The proposed site plan
submitted by the applicant depicts 192 condominiums or townhomes on the
subject site. If this development is approved, it would allow a new type of
housing product in the area and new housing opportunities for existing and new
residents to the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
15. As of the writing of this report, staff received three letters in support and one
letter with concerns about the development. The letter of concern cited issues
with the construction of more homes in District 8, an area with lots of youth in
distress. The three letters in support cited reasons such as land use compatibility
with the existing area, appropriate scale, high-quality development, and access
to healthy food via the community garden amenity on site.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
16. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalk via the most direct
route. Also, comments were provided to recommend alternative paving material
where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, and providing a minimum of 75
percent shade along pedestrian paths, including public sidewalks. These
comments are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 8, 13, 14, and 16. Stipulation No.
18 which addresses traffic calming measures at points of ingress or egress to the
site, was also recommended by staff in order to promote the safety of
pedestrians traveling along 36th Street.
17. The Street Transportation Department provided comments pertaining to multi-
use trail alignments envisioned within the site, pedestrian pathways connecting
the site to Esteban Park and bicycle infrastructure to promote multimodal
transportation. The multi-use trail which crosses the subject site east to west is
no longer being required by the Parks and Recreation Department to be
constructed within this site as there is a strip of land (San Francisco Canal) that
divides the subject site and Esteban Park, where the trail presently ends. Direct
pedestrian access from the subject site to Esteban Park was not recommended
as there is a strip of land (San Francisco Canal) that divides the site and Esteban
Park. Furthermore, private connections to public parks are typically not allowed
by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Bicycle infrastructure, including a bicycle repair station is addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 15 and 17. Additional comments from the Street Transportation
Page 380
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
Department included right-of-way dedication and completion of the cul-de-sac
along 36th Street, undergrounding or relocation of existing irrigation facilities,
and other general street improvement requirements. These comments are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 19 through 22.
18. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. Furthermore, that an
avigation easement is dedicated to the City of Phoenix as this property is within
the PHX International Airport traffic pattern airspace and seeking noise sensitive
land use. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 23 and 24.
19. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
In further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office, it was determined
that the Phase I testing conducted on the subject site by the applicant does not
warrant additional archaeological testing. However, in the event archaeological
materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing activities
must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly
assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.
20. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire
Code with Phoenix Amendments. 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 Fire Code. Lastly, it was
referenced that a fire apparatus access road needs to be provided to the site for
adequate access.
21. The Water Services Departments commented that the property has existing
water and sewer mains that can potentially serve the development. However,
capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety of
factors. Furthermore, the City intends to provide water and sewer service,
requirements and assurances for which are determined during the site plan
review process. For any given property, water and sewer requirements may vary
over time to be less or more restrictive depending on the status of the City’s
water and sewer infrastructure. Both water and sewer mains exist along 36th
Street.
22. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA).
Page 381
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
OTHER
23. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. As stipulated, the requested R-3 zoning is consistent with surrounding land uses
and will allow for an appropriate transition between single-family residential uses,
a public park, and commerce park development.
2. This proposed development provides a new housing option in the area that is
consistent with surrounding developments and the goals of the Esteban Park
Area Plan (EPAP).
3. The development, as stipulated, will improve connectivity in the area and
activates the 36th Street and Esteban Park frontages.
Stipulations
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public park, shall
contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
material that exhibits quality and durability.
c. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such
as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and
location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
Page 382
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings adjacent or oriented
toward single-family residential homes not part of this development.
4. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards, as described
below and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, shall
be planted where residential units are adjacent or oriented towards single-family
residential homes not a part of this development;
b. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings,
shall be utilized unless otherwise stated;
c. 50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-inch caliper
trees shall be utilized;
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity;
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a density of 12.50 dwelling units per gross acre.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to the site along
36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular ingress and egress, or
limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a low wall not
exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance, plus oriented towards
the public street or public park, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the public
sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the development.
b. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular entryway
Page 383
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided on both sides of
the entryway into the development. The landscaped accent areas shall provide a
visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal
interest and 75 percent live cover.
c. A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally within
the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a minimum of three
drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant, ornamental, flowering shrubs to
provide a minimum 75 percent live cover. Twenty five percent of the required live
cover may be ground cover plants.
d. The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing or a
combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a minimum,
distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a picnic table.
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one bench
located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
f. Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet that will
each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or seating feature.
Page 384
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
12. Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity and seating
areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs, grasses, or groundcover
plants), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using architectural shade
and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual dwelling units
adjacent to this street.
b. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting to the
sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections along vehicular
entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a pathway
connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing through a central
amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings;
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas;
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street;
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot pedestrian seating node and
amenity area along the most northern portion of the development adjacent to the western
edge of 36th Street (future cul-de-sac portion) to include the following elements at a
minimum, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Two benches or seating features;
Page 385
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
b. Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden, art
feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or other
uniquely identifying features;
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-of-way,
planted and maintained with at least three plant materials including a series of
annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom throughout the year;
16. The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of ingress /
egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the public sidewalks, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-foot half-
street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 386
Staff Report: Z-8-21-8
April 29, 2021
20. The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or relocated
outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish
appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or
land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
22. 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.
23. The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in
order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
April 29, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped April 6, 2021 (2 page)
Conceptual Building Elevations date stamped February 4, 2021 (3 pages)
Community Correspondence (5 pages)
Page 387
WIER AVE
32ND PL
CHIPMAN RD
R-3 IND.PK.
35TH ST
33RD ST
MOBILE LN
South Phoenix Village
and Target Area B ATLANTA AVE
Design Overlay Distr
ATLANTA WAY
38TH PL
ROESER RD
CP/GCP *
Z-1-19
* 37TH ST 39TH ST
CP/GCP *
IND.PK.
Z-4-20
R1-6 GROVE ST
CP/BP *
Z-54-89
LA SALLE ST
CP/BP *
Z-35-00
R-3A *
Z-42-02 S-1
CP/GCP* CP/GCP*
R-5 * Z-23-20 Z-116-00
Z-189-05
AVE
ERN WAYLAND DR
UTH
32ND ST
SO
OLD
34TH PL
R-5 *
Z-189-05 CP/GCP*
-2 * R-5
35TH PL
S-1
36TH ST
C-1* Z-11-90
8-87
CP/BP *
R1-6
Z-94-94
Z-69-08
MUA *
Z-150-99 CP/BP*
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District Z-11-98
SOUTHERN AVE
MUA
C-2
38TH ST
HGT/WVR *
Z-7-00 S-1 PUD * S-1 C-2 S-1 MUA* Z-30-97
Z-14-01
Z-8-19
7TH AVE
Miles
I 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST
I-10
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-8-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/5/2021
FROM:
R1-6 ( 18.41 a.c.)
Z-8-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
18.41 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D-10
TO: R-3 ( 18.41 a.c.)
QS 3-35
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 97 119
R-3 267 320
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 388
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-8-21.mxd
WIER AVE
32ND PL
CHIPMAN RD
R-3 IND.PK.
35TH ST
33RD ST
MOBILE LN
South Phoenix Village
and Target Area B ATLANTA AVE
Design Overlay Distr
ATLANTA WAY
38TH PL
ROESER RD
CP/GCP *
Z-1-19
* 37TH ST 39TH ST
CP/GCP *
IND.PK.
Z-4-20
R1-6 GROVE ST
CP/BP *
Z-54-89
LA SALLE ST
CP/BP *
Z-35-00
R-3A *
Z-42-02 S-1
CP/GCP* CP/GCP*
R-5 * Z-23-20 Z-116-00
Z-189-05
AVE
ERN WAYLAND DR
UTH
32ND ST
SO
OLD
34TH PL
R-5 *
Z-189-05 CP/GCP*
-2 * R-5
35TH PL
S-1
36TH ST
C-1* Z-11-90
8-87
CP/BP *
R1-6
Z-94-94
Z-69-08
MUA *
Z-150-99 CP/BP*
Baseline Area Plan
and Overlay District Z-11-98
SOUTHERN AVE
MUA
C-2
38TH ST
HGT/WVR *
Z-7-00 S-1 PUD * S-1 C-2 S-1 MUA* Z-30-97
Z-14-01
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
Z-8-19
7TH AVE
Miles
I 27TH AVE 19TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE 7TH ST 16TH ST 24TH ST
32ND ST
40TH ST
48TH ST
I-10
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-8-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Withey Morris PLC
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
3/5/2021
FROM:
R1-6 ( 18.41 a.c.)
Z-8-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
18.41 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.
D-10
TO: R-3 ( 18.41 a.c.)
QS 3-35
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 97 119
R-3 267 320
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 389
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-8-21.mxd
Page 390
Page 391
: < : 9 : 9 ?
V! S WX YZS SSD#SJuuj S SSD#SJuuj
06 3 06 3
P#)"
04 ,
NF"Qmgu
0* *
3
P#F#Qmsgu
,1 *
3
M"F#;sI ST U
`quuz
,0 *
,* 6
[SA& P$F$Qmsgu
O$F%QmgGR
6 *
2 0
; ? ; ?
Page 392
: 9 ? : ?
_#\Juuj SSD"SJuuj
06 3 06 3
T U S M%F%
05 ,
* *
0
3
P"F#Qmtgu
]^B
-1 *
[SA' `quuz
*
,0
P#F#@
6 *
0 0
@
Kcaqh8 .(7 / +
;usdwi|i JuujPmqi @zb Qm|l
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir Qlm|i Qn|lbsgQm|lu~}L|~ddu Jiiq{
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir Cmkl|@xb Qm|lbsgQm|lu~|L|~dde Jiiq{
Cmkl|Lbsg?msm{lL}~dduL{|ir :~zs|Fxbski Qo|lbsgQm|lu~}L|~fu Jiiq{
Ei|bq=s|z;bsuv
B D B A A D G
T%+&YQ||m YZ
[ U&+%
4: 7 % 4:
U&+&3s
49 .
I
J/ / / 0 / / J/ / / 0 0 / / J/ / // 0 / / J/ / / 0 0 / / J/ / // 0 /
bx ^ T%+& ;r
49.
% %
T'M( Wrzj| T(M' Wr{j|
\]Y
4 , , % 4,,
U&+&3s T%M% T&M% Wrzj|
.5 > % .6,
%
7
7
dnv||~
Y
7
T%M& C2zPYZ
[ % .4 ,
., : %
T(M' Wrzj|
T(M'
%
4
4
%
4
%
@
% : ,
%
G(G'
, ",
w Ga'G(
$# _`Y`_Y
V , ,
)
G E H H G E C C
Page 393
G G B A
^
c&^Q||m \]^c&^Q||m
U&+&
48 . %
!%
%%
"%
%
% 4 , , %
#%
% % T&M% Wr{j|
% .6,
4zjGv||~
% .4 ,
$%
YT%M& H T&M% WrjNX
% :, % : ,
4 4
o4 %
Y\]Y
G(G'
, ",
\]Y\]Y
G'G(
, ,
H C C H
Rgevk? 1*= .!-
C|zhll Q||mTrvl H~f WrqDf~uH~fGfhrf
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly Wqrl " WsqfzjWrq| S hh| Qllv
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly KrpqHf WrqfzjWrq| S hh| Qllv
KrpqSfzjGrzrqS hh|Sly B ~zMfzpl WtqfzjWrq| S i| Qllv
LlfvFz~Cfz|} Df~uHf
Df~uB~|zlWrzj|
Ez~fzjHf~fplD||~ OfrzljDf~uTlfv
6 3 6 3 3
O OOA!OGpp]
I C!4d ':
-0 % (:
%&
)*: +:
QV!QGpp] RSQ V!QGpp]
,: ':
$: -- 1 -- 1
K#C"Mdo[p}
': -$ $ ': -$ $
JC!4d . / O JC d K!C Mdn[p}
(: ': ': %. $
/
1:
/
1: OW^kpps
TUOW^lpps
2
K!C!5nF?O OU
P 3: ': &- $ ': %- $
%$ 1 (: 0: -:
I"C#6pps
K#C"Mdn[p}
! "":#:
': 1 $ ': 1 $
- _- - q `-
4 5:
6:
; 9"9"
$ $
7 8 :
: 2 9 7 5 5 7 9
Page 394
3 3 3
QR V!QGpp]
iw b
' ' ' f( ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' *) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) =) ) ' ' ' ) =) ) ' ' ' ) ) = -1 /
L + + > > + + + > +> + + > + +> + > + + +> > + + + > +> + +
O OOA#OGpp] RSQ V!QGpp]
': -- 1 ': -- 1
K!C Md[DN
': -$ $ ': -$ $
/
,
9:
K!C Mdo[p}
': %.$
'
-n[9kpps
&- $
':
-n[9lppt
&- $
': O JC!:
K!C Md[DN
':
- -
1 $
1 $
5 9
5pnYu\y\ Gpp]Idl\ :sX~ Mdyc6Xsj:sX~9XxYdX
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m Mcdy\ MgycXn[Mdycp{zHy{YYp G\|\lx
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m @dacy:tX~ MdycXn[Mdycp{yHy{YYp G\|\lx
@dacyHXn[9dndxcHz{YYpH~xy\m 3{snyCtXna\MhycXn[Mdycp{zHy{Zp G\|\lx
B\yXl8nys~5Xnpr~ 6Xsj:vX~
6Xsj3spn\Mdn[p}
7nys~Xn[:XsXa\ 6ppsx EXdny\[6XsjI\Xl
From: jade@jadestorm.com
To: ben@witheymorris.com
Cc: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-8-21) Hearing March 4, 2021
Date: Monday, March 1, 2021 6:35:56 PM
Hi Benjamin,
I previously left you a voice mail requesting your return call. I definitely will not be able to
attend the up-coming meeting, and wish your client the best.
My concerns have not changed when it comes to building more homes in District 8, a high
youth distressed boundary for Mir`Ra IMAGE.
Should your client get the approval from the City of Phoenix Zoning Officers to rezone this
already distressed area, with many registered sex offenders and medical marijuana entities
do they have a youth-based neighborhood organization already in place to support?
If not, will your client be willing to make a monthly tax-deductible contribution to support
my efforts and vision for Mir`Ra IMAGE?
Once again, the neighborhood organization is a registered non-profit private foundation to
help inspire our young adults to reflect leadership, while educating the community towards
a sustainable environment. Bringing on more young adults and youth to South Phoenix and
not supporting this local neighborhood organizations will not be in the best interest as I am
already struggling to help keep them focused on their education and a healthier lifestyle.
Warmest regards, Jadestorm
"Where there is love there is everlasting life!"
Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen
CEO/ President/ Founder
SWIYYAH, LLC and Mir`Ra IMAGE, Inc.
Jadestorm.com [jadestorm.com]
Mirraimage.org [mirraimage.org]
9307 S. 51st Ave #1160
Laveen, Arizona 85339
Cell 480-580-7653
Google Voice 480-253-9011
Mir`Ra IMAGE is a 501(C)( 3) Private Foundation.
Community Resource | Green Fashion | Organic Entertainment | Students Opportunity for
Success
Our goal is to focus on inspiring young adults, entrepreneurs and the community to reflect
leadership towards sustainable fashion and entertainment.
© 2006-2021 All rights reserved. CONFIDENTIALITY WARNING
Page 395
The information contained in this communication, including its attachments, may contain
confidential information and is intended only for the individual(s) or entity(ies) to whom it is
addressed. The information contained in this communication may also be protected by legal
privilege, federal law or other applicable law.
Copyright and any other intellectual property rights contained herein are the sole property of
Swiyyah, LLC, Mir`Ra IMAGE, Inc. If you have received this message in error, please notify
Jadestorm Shamsid-Deen at Jade@jadestorm.com immediately by return e-mail and delete the
message, without drawing any copy.
Page 396
COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES
William Bayless
Senior Vice President 2575 East Camelback Road
Suite 500
CBRE, Inc. Phoenix, AZ 85016-4290
Industrial Properties
602.735.5652 Tel
602.735.5655 Fax
bill.bayless@cbre.com
www.cbre.com
March 23, 2021
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
South Mountain Village Planner
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: SoMo at Esteban – Z-8-21/GPA-SM-1-21
Dear Mr. Bojórquez-Gaxiola:
I am a neighboring property owner and I am writing in support of the proposed SoMo at Esteban
townhome development. My property is located at 3601 E. La Salle Street, right across the street from
the subject site.
I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the development team and review the conceptual plans for the
proposed townhome community. SoMo at Esteban is an attractive, well-designed community that will
provide an excellent transition between the industrial/commerce uses in our business park and the
single-family homes west of the site. Their proposal is the perfect missing piece to tie in with the rest
of the community and provide connectivity to Esteban Park.
This proposal is the kind of smart, contextually appropriate development the City needs, and I am in
full support of Avenue North’s applications.
Sincerely,
Bill Bayless
Senior Vice President
Page 397
John Poland, 5715 S 34th Place
Page 398
5 April 2021
200 W Washington St 3rd Floor
Phoenix AZ 85003
RE: Letter of Support for Somo at Esteban Park -- Rezoning Application # is Z-8-21 and Minor General
Plan Amendment GPA-SM-1-21.
TigerMountain Foundation, a South Phoenix-based nonprofit corporation, is pleased to submit this letter of
support for the Avenue North “Somo at Esteban Park” project that sits on approximately 18.4 acres located
north of the northwest corner of 36th Street and Wayland Drive, Phoenix, Arizona.
TigerMountain Foundation seeks to empower the people of South Phoenix by building flourishing community
gardens and through our multi-ethnic and inter-generational Garden and Landscape/Agriscaping Initiatives we
mentor participants through an active and healthy eating lifestyle, a Personal Strategy Roadmap that encourages
goal completion and transitions folks into workforce development skills that prepare them to earn a living wage.
In partnership with several local and national partners, we have implemented two (2) community gardens
within the South Mountain Village; (i) Spaces of Opportunity located at Vineyard Road and 15th Avenue; and,
(ii) Garden of Tomorrow located at 18th Place and Broadway Road. Among other objectives, these gardens seek
to provide healthy, affordable, accessible food and promote the diverse South Mountain Village culture.
We have had an opportunity to learn about the proposed project which will include a resident garden and access
to Esteban Park. In addition to all of the objectives that our organization would seek to achieve (i.e. access to
healthy food), the proposed resident garden amenity is a unique opportunity. This will provide the project
residents with a central and meaningful gathering place that encourages a sense of community and pride.
The proposed resident garden provides a unique opportunity to instill a sense of place, create meaningful access
to healthy food and promote active lifestyles. The goals for the resident garden are well aligned with our goals
and objectives for the larger South Phoenix community and is a great opportunity for other partnerships to join
and align and strengthen the overall community. For these reasons, we strongly support the project
Darren J. Chapman, CEO - Founder - TigerMountain Foundation
darren.chapman@TigerMountainFoundation.org Cell | (213) 300-8846
TigerMountain Foundation | 3146 E Wier Avenue, Suite 31 | Phoenix, AZ 85040
www.TigerMountainFoundation.org AZ Qualified Tax Credit Charity # 20127
Page 399
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-8-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting May 11, 2021
Request From R1-6
Request To R-3
Proposed Use Multifamily residential townhome community
(condominiums)
Location Approximately 100 feet north of the northwest corner of
36th Street and Wayland Drive
VPC Recommendation Approval per staff recommendation presented in the staff
report with modification to Stipulation Nos. 5 and 15.
VPC Vote 11-0 Motion passes; with members Aldama, Alvarez,
Brownell, Busching, Holmerud, Marchuk, Ray, Shepard,
M. Smith, Viera and Daniels in favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
8 requests to speak in support from members of the public were received regarding
cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. Two other members of the public registered
their support but did not wish to speak.
Enrique Bojorquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a joint presentation for
companion cases GPA-SM-1-21-8 and Z-8-21-8. He discussed the location of the
site, noting surrounding land uses including a public park, various schools and
commercial services including a grocery store and urban farm. He discussed the
existing General Plan Land Use map designation and the requested Land Use map
amendment. He discussed the surrounding zoning districts in the area, Esteban
Park Area Plan, and other policy documents including the General Plan. The
conceptual site plan was shown, indicating the vehicular access points, open
space, perimeter landscape areas, amenities, density proposed and shown, and lot
coverage. The conceptual building elevations and materials were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation on the case and
describing the proposed stipulations, as presented in the staff report.
Andrew Biskind, with Avenue North, introduced himself and the project.
Benjamin Tate, with Withey Morris PLC., introduced himself and discussed the
subject site and site conditions. An overview of the proposal and site plan was
Page 400
provided, followed by renderings of the proposed development. He discussed
community open space areas and the pedestrian seating node located north of the
site. An overview of neighborhood outreach including adjacent neighbors,
businesses, Parks and Recreation Department and other community groups. The
three community benefits were addressed per the General Plan, including goals
and policies. Various letters of support were received, and an overview of this
project addressed various priorities listed by the South Mountain VPC. An example
of another project along 16th Street was provided and concluded the presentation
by requesting approval of both cases.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• Have you considered imposing a limit on the number of homes that can be
owned by investors as part of this development?
• Will VA and FHA loans be available?
• Have you considered changing the term “community garden” to “garden
area” referenced in the stipulations?
Mr. Biskind responded that it is difficult to restrict qualified buyers but do intend to
prohibit short-term rentals in this community.
Mr. Tate responded that they can consider CC&R restrictions that could limit the
number of units owned by a single individual or entity within this community. The
ability to offer FHA and VA loans will be applied for and is intended to be provided.
Kassandra Alvarez asked for clarification on the lighting provided within this
development.
Mr. Tate responded that pedestrian-scale lighting is proposed along pedestrian
paths, including along Esteban Park.
Kay Shepard asked the following questions:
• What is the density proposed?
• How many uncovered parking stalls are provided?
• Why are palm trees proposed within landscape areas?
• What is the size of each residential unit?
Mr. Tate responded that 192 units are proposed and that there was a discrepancy
on the number of units within this development. Excess parking stalls are
distributed throughout the site, and palm trees were conceptually depicted but may
not be ultimately chosen. The community will be comprised of 2 and 3-bedroom
units.
Mr. Marchuk asked if there is a community benefit agreement proposed? And why
the R-2 zoning district was not selected if the project can fit within that density
permitted?
Page 401
Mr. Tate responded that no community benefit agreement is proposed at this time,
and the R-2 zoning district was not selected originally since the density in the site
plan changed following a revision during the rezoning process.
Mr. Bojorquez responded that the R-2 zoning district allows the envisioned project
density but could require a landscape setback modification.
Mr. Tate responded that a site plan revision at this moment would be very difficult
due to all the engineering that has been done so far.
Ms. Busching asked if the applicant would be willing to reduce the number of units
referenced in Stipulation No. 5 to not exceed 192 units total. Also, adding the word
“public” to Stipulation No. 15, in order to allow the pedestrian seating node to be
publicly accessible.
Mr. Tate responded that he would support those proposed stipulation modifications.
Gene Holmerud asked for clarification on perimeter setbacks and access along
36th Street.
Mr. Tate discussed the orientation of units and street improvements along 36th
Street.
Mr. Holmerud stated that bike lockers are needed and discussed the building
elevations proposed.
Mr. Tate discussed the bicycle amenities provided within the pedestrian seating
node.
Muriel Smith asked for clarification on dustproofing requirements along Esteban
Park.
Mr. Tate responded that there were ongoing discussions with Council District 8 to
consider relocating the green waste area along Esteban Park to another location.
Chairwoman Daniels asked the following questions:
• Will this project change from lot sales to unit rentals in the future?
• What will be the HOA fees?
• What is the price-point for these new homes?
Mr. Tate responded that the community will not change from lot sales to rentals. It
is too early at this time to project HOA maintenance costs and actual project costs.
The price of the homes is projected to be in the mid-$300,000 range.
Page 402
Chairwoman Daniels is pleased to encourage homeownership in this community.
She opened the public comment portion of the meeting.
Dr. Bruce McHenry works in South Mountain Community College (SMCC) and
discussed the classroom engagement by the applicant, Andrew Biskind and Ryan,
who reached out to him years prior and provided a presentation to students at
SMCC regarding entrepreneurship. He supports the developer and this new project.
Darren Chapman, with Tiger Mountain Foundation, introduced himself and
discussed his 15 years of experience with community gardens. He was contacted
by the developer who is engaged with the community. His experience will help keep
up and ensure that the community garden can last. He supports the developer, who
has been amazing to work with.
Cristian Perez, soccer coach with a soccer club at Esteban Park, introduced
himself and discussed the reutilization of the current green waste area,
transforming this into usable open space. He likes the project’s architecture and
discussed how the developer has approached him. The project will allow for first-
time home buyers and others to continue to live in South Phoenix and is pleased
with this development.
Jimmy Scroggins is a motivation speaker and is pleased to see this community
develop. He discussed the youth in the area and applauds the type of development
that adds value to the Esteban Park area for the South Phoenix community.
Timothy Hills, Nate, Wendy and Chris registered to speak in support of these two
cases but were not connected during the meeting or could not be identified by staff.
Committee member Lee Coleman left the meeting at 9:15pm bringing the quorum
to 11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for discussion or a motion on both cases.
MOTION – Z-8-21-8
Ms. Busching made a motion to approve case Z-8-21-8 per the staff
recommendation in the staff report with modifications to Stipulation Nos. 5 and
15. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion.
VOTE:
11-0 Motion passes; None in dissent.
APPROVED STIPULATIONS:
1. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
Page 403
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
b. Building elevations adjacent and oriented to public streets and the public park, shall
contain a minimum of 25 percent brick, masonry, stone or another exterior accent
material that exhibits quality and durability.
c. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing such
as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and
location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
2. Building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet.
3. There shall be no balconies on the upper floors of residential dwellings adjacent or oriented
toward single-family residential homes not part of this development.
4. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted to the following standards, as described
below and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Large canopy evergreen trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings, shall
be planted where residential units are adjacent or oriented towards single-family
residential homes not a part of this development;
b. Large canopy drought-tolerant trees 20 feet on center, or in equivalent groupings,
shall be utilized unless otherwise stated;
c. 50 percent 2-inch caliper, 40 percent 3-inch caliper and 10 percent 4-inch caliper
trees shall be utilized;
d. Five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover, shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity;
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
5. The development shall be limited to a MAXIMUM density of 192 DWELLING UNITS 12.50
dwelling units per gross acre.
6. The development shall provide a primary and secondary vehicular access to the site along
36th Street. The secondary access point may serve as vehicular ingress and egress, or
limited to vehicular egress and emergency access only, as approved or modified by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 404
7. Individual dwelling units adjacent to 36th Street and Esteban Park shall provide an
entryway that is either elevated, depressed or includes a feature such as a low wall not
exceeding 40 inches in height to accentuate the primary entrance, plus oriented towards
the public street or public park, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The primary entrance to the development from 36th Street shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Pedestrian pathways connecting the interior of the development to the public
sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular entryway into the development.
b. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the primary vehicular entryway
with a minimum 5-foot wide landscaped accent area provided on both sides of
the entryway into the development. The landscaped accent areas shall provide a
visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal
interest and 75 percent live cover.
c. A median island of no less than 5 feet in width shall be located centrally within
the vehicular entryway into the development and accented by a minimum of three
drought-tolerant trees, and drought-tolerant, ornamental, flowering shrubs to
provide a minimum 75 percent live cover. Twenty five percent of the required live
cover may be ground cover plants.
d. The driveway surface shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Perimeter walls adjacent to the public park shall be limited to open view fencing or a
combination of maximum three feet of solid masonry topped by open view fencing, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. All perimeter walls visible from a public street shall include material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The development shall include the following amenities and elements at a minimum,
distributed between the open space area(s) throughout the site, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Swimming pool.
b. Clubhouse.
c. Two picnic areas, each with one barbecue grill, shade ramada and a picnic table.
Page 405
d. Five benches distributed throughout the development, including one bench
located within close proximity to 36th Street.
e. Turf area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet.
f. Community garden area(s) of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet that will
each include a garden tool library, irrigation, and one bench or seating feature.
12. Open space areas shall have a minimum 50 percent shade, including amenity and seating
areas, and a minimum of 50 percent live vegetative cover (shrubs, grasses, or groundcover
plants), as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Pedestrian paths shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using architectural shade
and/or shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide a system of pedestrian thoroughfares, as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Direct connection to the sidewalk along 36th Street for individual dwelling units
adjacent to this street.
b. The developer shall provide a minimum of two pedestrian paths connecting to the
sidewalk along 36th Street, exclusive of pedestrian connections along vehicular
entryways.
c. Illuminated by pedestrian scale lighting per Section 1304(H)5 for a pathway
connecting 36th Street along the primary entrance, passing through a central
amenity area, and terminating at the west property line.
d. Where pedestrian paths and vehicular crossings exist, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrasts parking and drive aisle surfaces.
Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.
e. Connections to/between:
(1) All residential dwellings;
(2) All amenity facilities and active open space areas;
(3) The sidewalk along 36th Street;
15. The development shall provide a minimum 1,000 square foot PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE
pedestrian seating node and amenity area along the most northern portion of the
development adjacent to the western edge of 36th Street (future cul-de-sac portion) to
Page 406
include the following elements at a minimum, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Two benches or seating features;
b. Bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) provided and maintained in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a tire
gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and a bicycle
repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making
adjustments to the bike.
c. Amenity area that includes either/or combination of a community garden, art
feature, nature walk, natural features such as boulders or fountains, or other
uniquely identifying features;
d. A landscaped accent area, exclusive of perimeter landscaping and right-of-way,
planted and maintained with at least three plant materials including a series of
annuals that will each maintain a constant bloom throughout the year;
16. The public sidewalk along 36th Street shall be detached with a minimum five-foot wide
landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Minimum 3-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings to provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent of the sidewalk.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation designed to grow to a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
17. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
artistic racks located near each vehicular point of ingress or egress and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
18. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of ingress /
egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing the public sidewalks, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 407
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 5 feet of right-of-way for a total 30-foot half-
street right-of-way, and construct the west half of 36th Street, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
20. The developer shall complete the 50-foot radius cul-de-sac termination at 36th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
21. Existing irrigation facilities along 36th Street are to be undergrounded and/or relocated
outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify existing land rights and establish
appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or
land transfer require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
22. 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.
23. The developer shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in
order to disclose the existence and operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport (PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property.
24. 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.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology Office to properly
assess the materials.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
During the May 11, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting,
committee member Trent Marchuk asked staff whether the conceptual site plan
submitted by the applicant and attached to the staff report, could be developed using
the R-2 (Multifamily Residence) District. Staff responded that a landscape setback
modification could be required.
After a closer evaluation of the conceptual site plan submitted by the applicant, date
stamped April 6, 2021, staff has determined that the proposed site plan meets the
development standards of the R-2 zoning district. The site plan standards are provided
below:
Page 408
R-2 – Multifamily Residence District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards R-2 Requirements proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 18.41 acres
Total Maximum 193 units, 221 with bonus 192 units (Met)
Number of Units
Maximum Density 10.5 dwelling units per acre, 12 10.43 dwelling units per
with bonus. acre (Met)
Maximum Lot 45% 28% (Met)
Coverage
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet for first Maximum of 2 stories and
Height 150 feet; 1-foot in 5-foot 25 feet. (Met)
increase to 48 feet high and 4
stories.
There shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten feet
of a single-family zoned district,
which height may be increased
one foot for each additional one
foot of building setback to the
maximum permitted height.
MINIMUM PERIMETER STANDARDS
Adjacent to a public 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
street (36th Street)
Other perimeter North: 10 feet North: 15 feet (Met)
property lines (North,
South and West) South: 10 feet South: 10 feet (Met)
West: 10 feet West: 15 feet (Met)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front (36th Street) 20 feet 20 feet (Met)
Sides and Rear North: 5 feet North: 5 feet (Met)
(North, South and
West property lines) South: 5 feet South: 5 feet (Met)
West: 5 feet West: 5 feet (Met)
Minimum Open 5% of gross site area 6.4% (Met)
Space
Page 409
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-49-20-3 -
Located Approximately 970 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 34th Street
and Sweetwater Avenue (Ordinance G-6871)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-49-20-
3 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) for a Community Residence Center.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 1.11 acres
Proposed Use: Community Residence Center
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Representative: Matt Ihms
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on May
3, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation by a vote of 11-6.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on June 10, 2021. A three-quarter vote is not required.
Location
Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 13225 N. 34th St.
Page 410
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 411
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
AF
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-49-20-3) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).
follows:
T ____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
R SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.11 acre site located approximately 970 feet
north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue in a portion of
Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
D
“A”, is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3”
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 412
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of
carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to
R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4.
AF
All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window
size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
5.
6.
T
The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and five
5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent
with a pedestrian environment.
Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
7.
R landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-
tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by
D the Planning and Development Department.
a.
b.
Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile or stamped designs.
A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and
wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the
eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the drainage
channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all
building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks
Page 413
utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of
decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive
aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided,
located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix
K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as
AF
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus
of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
14. T
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.
A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called
Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction
R
encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no
floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does occur, then the
following requirements must be met, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
D a.
b.
The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area
boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities
and surrounding properties have been considered, following the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3).
This includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review and
approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 414
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
AF
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
ATTEST:
T
____________________________City Clerk
________________________________
MAYOR
R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
D
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 415
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-49-20-3
THAT PART OF LOT 4, OASIS ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN
BOOK 45 OF MAPS AT PAGE 20, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
AF
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 35.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 58 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
35.07 FEET;
T
THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 59 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
31.89 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 39 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
56.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 56 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
77.99 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 12 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
R
75.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 24 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
58.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 49 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
D
46.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 46 SECONDES WEST A DISTANCE
OF 199.07 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 297.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVERYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, RECORDED
FEBRUARY 18, 2016 IN RECORDING NO 2016-103579, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 416
Page 417
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Paradise Valley Village Planning May 3, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(1.11 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(1.11 acres)
Proposed Use: Community Residence Center
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant and Representative: Matt Ihms
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation acre and Parks/Open Space-Publicly
Owned
Street Map Classification 34th Street Local Street 30-feet east half street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
Per historic aerial photography, the subject site has remained vacant since it was
annexed from Maricopa County into the City of Phoenix in 1962. The development
Page 418
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
would permit a new use in the area at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and appropriately located at the end of a local street absent of residential
homes immediately fronting it. Furthermore, this local street, 34th Street, connects to
Sweetwater Avenue, a minor collector street, which will provide easy access to other
parts of the Village.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that support
a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposal, a community residence center, is compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area which are residential and quasi-public in nature. This use allows a
new housing type that will serve individuals with disabilities in the community to
support a broad range of lifestyles. As stipulated, the development will incorporate
elements to maintain an appropriate scale with the existing neighborhood.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The development provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhood, which are predominantly built out and
zoned single-family and multifamily residential. The subject site is located at the end
of a local street that presently serves as primary access to residential uses in the area
and a church south of the site. The subject site is adjacent to non-residential uses,
including a church, freeway and a wash, thus no adverse impacts are anticipated on
adjacent land uses if this rezoning request is approved.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along internal
pedestrian paths and the adjacent public street. This will help to encourage walking
and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by shading hard surfaces, thus cooling the
micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Page 419
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 9.
Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan: See Background Item No. 10.
State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy: See Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 12.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant / Undeveloped R1-6
Vacant / Undeveloped,
North R1-6
Indian Bend Wash
South Single-Family Residential R1-6
East (across Phoenix Indian Bend Wash
Indian Bend Park and Single-Family R1-6
Wash) Residential
West State Route 51 R1-6
R-3 – Multifamily Residential
(Subdivision Development Option)
Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Gross Acreage - 1.11 acres
Maximum Number 16 units None (Met, community residence
of Units center with 50 beds proposed)
Maximum Density Maximum 14.5 dwelling units None (Met, community residence
per acre center with 50 beds proposed)
Page 420
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Maximum Building 2 stories or 30 feet (except 2 stories or 30 feet (Met)
Height that there shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten
feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be
increased one foot for each
additional one foot of
building setback to the
maximum permitted height.)
Maximum Lot 45 percent 22 percent (Met)
Coverage
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet 30 feet (Met)
Rear: East 15 feet 21 feet (Met)
property line
Sides: North and 10 feet and 3 feet 15 feet and 127 feet (Met)
south property
lines
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet Not specified*
Rear and sides: 5 feet Not specified*
North, south and
east property lines
Minimum Open 5% of gross area Not specified*
Space
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 1 space per two 32 spaces provided (Square
resident/patient beds footage of office space not
(Community Residence provided)*
Center/Nursing Home) and 1
space per 300 square feet
(Office).
*Site plan revision or variance required.
Page 421
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.11 acres located approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue from R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) for a
community residence center, subject to a use permit process. Community
residence centers are permitted subject to a use permit in multifamily zoning
districts, including the R-3 zoning district, while permitted by right in some of the
commercial zoning districts. The site is presently vacant and undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The request for R-3
(Multifamily Residence
District) zoning is located in
an area surrounded by single-
family zoning, although
adjacent to non-residential
uses. These non-residential
uses include a vacant
lot/wash area (north), church
(south), State Route 51 (west)
and Phoenix Indian Bend
Wash Park (east).
Multifamily zoning is located
near the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue, developed with a
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
single-family detached use. Department
Multifamily uses developed under the R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
zoning exists along 34th Street, less than 500 feet south of the subject site.
Access to the subject site is along 34th Street, a local street, which terminates at
the subject site. Overall, the general area has been developed with a variety of
residential uses, including single-family and multifamily, plus non-residential
uses. The proposed multifamily zoning is consistent with existing uses in the
area and will allow a new residential use to be established on the subject site
without impacting nearby residential properties due to its geographic location.
Page 422
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Parks/Open Space -Publicly Owned. The
proposal is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use map
designation, as the R-3 zoning district is consistent with Commercial and
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre Land Use Map designations.
However, a Minor General Plan Amendment is not required since the site is
under 10 acres in size.
North and east of the site has been designated as Parks/Open-Space-Publicly
Owned and a small portion as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. South
of the site has been designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
and west of the site has been designated as Transportation along State Route
51.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
Page 423
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The development proposes a
community residence center,
subject to a use permit, on
the subject site. The
conceptual site plan shows a
single two-story building
located on the north-half of
the site, with vehicular
surface parking spaces
located on the south-half of
the site. An open space area
is proposed west of the
building, within proximity to
the eastern property line
bordering Indian Bend Wash.
Access to the site is proposed
exclusively along 34th Street,
envisioned to terminate as a
cul-de-sac to be constructed
as part of this development. A
sidewalk connecting to
Sweetwater Avenue presently
exists along most of 34th
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
Street, located either on the
west or east side of the street.
As mentioned previously in this report, no residential uses are adjacent to the
subject site. However, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 which would limit the
location of buildings on the site away from an adjacent single-family zoned
property to the south, shall this property develop in the future as single-family.
Stipulation No. 1 would require a minimum 50-foot building setback from the
south property line, exclusive of carports or perimeter walls. A church is adjacent
to the site along the south property line, while a freeway and wash bound the
remaining property lines.
General conformance to the conceptual site plan is not proposed since zoning
variances may be requested by the applicant following the rezoning process if
site plan modifications cannot be made. Furthermore, the subject parcel is non-
symmetrical in shape and constrained by topographical features such as a wash
and freeway, thus additional flexibility during the develop review phase for the
Page 424
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
site could be beneficial. In addition, a community residence center is subject to a
use permit within the R-3 multifamily district. Use permits and variances undergo
a separate review process, subject to the Zoning Adjustment hearing process.
5. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict various architectural features such as
pitched roofs, windows, a covered patio and four-sided architecture. Building
materials referenced in the conceptual elevations include brick façade, cement
board siding, stucco and tile roofs. The conceptual building elevations proposed
for the site depict a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet to the mid-point of
the roof. Stipulation No. 2 recommends limiting the maximum height of buildings
on site to two stories and 30 feet to help keep the building on this site consistent
with adjacent R1-6 zoning district permitted height standards.
Staff is recommending a stipulation to require building elevations to incorporate a
variety of colors, materials and textural changes. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 3. Stipulation No. 4 also recommends that all building elevations contain
architectural embellishments and detailing, including pitched roofs, and/or
overhang canopies. Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4 will ensure that the site provides
aesthetically pleasing building materials and architecture across from a public
park and adjacent to a single-family zoned property.
A conformance to the conceptual building elevations is not currently proposed as
the building elevations show no colors and since zoning variances may be
requested following the rezoning process if site plan modifications cannot be
made, which could result in a change of layout for the building. However, the
stipulations listed above will help ensure that the proposed buildings will
incorporate pleasing aesthetics, materials that will withstand the weather for
many years and architectural features consistent with those found in the adjacent
residential areas.
Page 425
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Conceptual Building Elevations, Source: Another Look LLC.
6. Landscaping, Walls and Walkways
The development features one usable open space area, northeast of the site at
approximately 12,100 square feet in area. This open space area is oriented
towards Indian Bend Wash, east of the site, and will serve to enhance the
viewscape from the wash area towards this adjacent bank. Furthermore, the R-3
zoning district requires that a minimum of 100 square feet of open space is
provided per bed in community residence centers.
In order to buffer the site from adjacent uses, increase shade and to provide an
enhanced landscape treatment along Indian Bend Wash, Stipulation No. 5
recommends enhanced plantings within landscape setbacks that include
minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
equivalent groupings and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.
Page 426
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Stipulation No. 6 recommends that
where a landscaped median is
provided within the ingress or
egress to the site, a landscaped
accent area shall be provided. This
will help to provide a visually unique
character and provide seasonal
interest along the streetscape.
Stipulation No. 7 recommends
several wall enhancements to be
aesthetically pleasing along the
street frontage and Indian Bend
Wash. The wall enhancements
include:
x Finished appearance with
textural differences where
visible from public streets;
x Combination of view fencing
and solid walls along Indian
Bend Wash.
Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9 Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
with Planning and Development Department
recommend several pedestrian annotations
enhancements to promote walking
and safety. The enhancements
include:
x Pedestrian pathways that
connect all buildings,
community amenity areas
and public sidewalks via the
most direct route;
x Pathways constructed of
decorative pathways that
visually contrast with parking
and drive aisle surfaces.
Page 427
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
STUDIES AND POLICIES
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to
provide trees and enhance shade within the development. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 10 to require a minimum of 75 percent shade within pedestrian
walkways, including the public sidewalk, to encourage walking by employees and
residents by providing thermal comfort.
8. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by shading sidewalks adjacent to
the development, addressed in Stipulation No. 10. A minimum of two inverted u-
bicycle racks located near the main building entrance are recommended in
Stipulation No. 11.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
Bicycle lanes have been designed within the Sweetwater Avenue corridor; thus
Stipulation No. 11 recommends a minimum of two inverted u-bicycle racks
located near the main building entrance to promote the use of bicycling as a
means of transportations for future employees and residents of this facility.
10. Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan
The Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan was approved in 1991 to help
address the impacts of the State Route 51 (SR-51) freeway on adjacent
neighborhoods. The plan proposes ways to maximize the compatibility of the
freeway with adjacent and nearby land uses, while encouraging neighborhood
cohesion and stability. The subject site is located within Segment 5 of this
Specific Plan and was envisioned as a park within the existing and proposed
land use map, part of a larger linear park along Indian Bend Wash. Thus, the
proposal is consistent with the Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan existing
and proposed land use map. However, the existing freeway noise mitigation wall
and landscape area within the SR-51 freeway portion, in addition to landscape
setbacks adjacent to the SR-51, will help mitigate any potential impacts to this
new proposed development.
Page 428
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
11. State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy
The State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy was approved in 2011 to
help establish and protect this scenic corridor from outdoor uses, such as
outdoor storage and off-premise advertising structures, along portions of the
State Route 51 and Loop 101. The requested R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) zoning does not allow outdoor uses such as outdoor storage or off-
premise advertising structures, thus the proposal is consistent with this policy
document and will promote the vision for this scenic corridor.
12. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The applicant materials indicate that recycling services
will be part of the development.
13. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.
Although the proposed community residence center is not a traditional residential
use, it will allow for disabled residents to be housed and cared for at this location,
which proposes up to 50 beds as part of this facility. Shall the proposed use not
be developed on this site, the proposed zoning would permit a variety of
residential uses including single-family and multifamily.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff had not received any letters in support or
opposition to this rezoning application. Staff did receive a letter from an individual
Page 429
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
in the area that listed concerns regarding the manner in which the virtual
neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire
Code with Phoenix Amendments, and the facility will require fire sprinklers and
an alarm system. Further, the Department commented that they do not know the
water supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required
to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.
16. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that a sliver of the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within the sliver, then no floodplain
requirements will be required. If an encroachment does occur, Stipulation No. 14
addresses these floodplain requirements.
17. The Public Transit Department provided comments expressing the importance of
direct, clearly defined accessible, and well shaded pedestrian pathways on the
site. Shaded pathways should connect the public sidewalks with site amenities
and gathering areas. Lastly, that alternative pavement material be used where
pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles. These comments were addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
18. The Pedestrian Safety Coordinator with the Street Transportation Department
commented that pedestrian accesses to the site from the public sidewalk should
be attractive plus inviting, in addition to providing a shaded plus illuminated
pedestrian circulation on the site. Furthermore, that alternative paving material
be used to delineate pedestrian walkways where vehicle conflicts exist. Also, that
the public sidewalk be detached to help provide shade and thick vegetation to
discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. Lastly, that pedestrian walkways are
marked where these are located in parking areas, and that buildings with varied
setbacks are located near sidewalks to encourage walking plus create visual
vibrancy.
Stipulation No. 6 requires a landscaped accent area where a median is provided
along the main entrance to the site to create visual vibrancy. Stipulation No. 8
addresses pedestrian pathways that connect the site to adjacent sidewalks,
while Stipulation No. 9 requires decorative pavement to be utilized in order to
visually contrast the parking surfaces. Lastly, Stipulation No. 10 requires the
Page 430
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
shading of pedestrian walkways to encourage walking. Variation in building
setbacks was not stipulated due to the unique shape of the parcel, which
constraints development on the site.
19. The Street Transportation Department requires the construction of a cul-de-sac
at the terminus of 34th Street. Furthermore, that the developer construct all
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required elements. These
are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 and 13.
OTHER
20. The site is not located in an area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. In
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 15.
21. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that is
consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the community
for disabled individuals.
2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure that
it remains compatible with the area.
3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.
Stipulations
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of carports and
perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
Page 431
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and textural
changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored textured concrete or
stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade
trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on
alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant
materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or
stamped designs.
b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and wrought iron
view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the eastern property lines
where open space is adjacent to the drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash)
east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all building
entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks utilizing the
minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 432
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of decorative
pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided, located
near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K,
“Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus of 34th
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE
Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) revised December
22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction encroachment including fill
within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required.
If encroachment does occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area boundary
limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities and surrounding
properties have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but not limited to
provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City
Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of Public Works Department for review and approval of
Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to
properly assess the materials.
Page 433
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
April 20, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped September 17, 2020 (1 page)
Conceptual Elevations date stamped September 17, 2020 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (1 page)
Page 434
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR
36TH PL
36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR
35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L
35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE
32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan
PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E
33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97
CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04
SWEETWATER AVE
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 435
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR
36TH PL
36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR
35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L
35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE
32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan
PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E
33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97
CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04
SWEETWATER AVE Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 436
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z-49-20-3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf
Dear Mr. Ihms,
I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above-mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:
1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in-person meeting works.
Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.
Best Regards,
Emad Zaki
Page 440
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-49-20-3
Date of VPC Meeting May 3, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
Request To R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Use Community Residence Center
Location Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore,
Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise,
Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and
Ulibarri not in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed over time, the General Plan Land Use
Map designation and character of the surrounding area. Mr. Simmons went over
conceptual site plans and elevations as well as proposed standards. Further, Mr.
Simmons covered a series of stipulations tied to the case.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked staff is the stipulations included a general
conformance stip to the site plans or elevations.
Mr. Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola, staff, shared that there are no general
conformance stipulations due to the required zoning adjustments the applicant
will need to apply for after this case is approved.
Ms. Larisa Balderrama stated that he has concerns with this use being located
in such close proximity to single-family homes.
Mr. Paul Severs asked how many residences will be allowed to be housed in
this facility.
Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola stated that the applicant could speak to this during his
presentation.
Applicant Presentation:
Page 441
Mr. Thomas Fedzin, applicant, provide a thorough background on his business
model. He shared that this house will provide housing for elder care and assisted
living. He emphasized that this is not a sober living home. He stated that up to 40
residence could reside int eh home at one time and the square footage of the
structure is about 14k square feet in size.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if this were a mix of independent and assisted living.
Mr. Fedzin shared that it could be a mix.
Mr. Goodhue asked why the two groups would be separated.
Mr. Fedzin shared that those uses fall under the same license. The separation
was for staffing purposes as each staff set has area of expertise.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked Mr. Fedzin to please define “wellness center”, as
referenced in the applicant’s presentation. She also asked if there were a limited
number of beds for Medicade patience.
Mr. Fedzin defined “wellness center” and expanded on the number of beds that
would be allowed under Medicade.
Vicechair Joe Lesher shared that he had looked up Solace Hospice and they
have outstanding reviews. He also stated that the existing facilities on the
website look very nice.
Mr. Alex Popovic asked if his company has entered into a Public Private
Partnership with the City of Phoenix for this proposal.
Mr. Fedzin stated that no Public Private Partnership has been discussed with the
Mr. Popovic asked the applicant if he had developed in other areas or if this was
his first venture in this industry.
Mr. Fedzin shared that yes, he has built from the ground up in Surprise,
Goodyear and Peoria.
Mr. Popovic asked is he has sold them or if he retains them and manages them.
He also asked if there were 3rd party operators.
Mr. Fedzin explained that they retain them. He stated that they build a good staff
and intern provide a high quality product.
Mr. Popovic asked what community outreach was done prior to coming to this
committee tonight.
Mr. Fedzin shared that they had a neighborhood meeting and send out
neighborhood notification letters.
Page 442
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there were any persons present voicing opposition at
the neighborhood meeting.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that one letter in opposition was received
prior to the staff report being posted. He also shared a citizen participation report
was submitted as part of the rezoning packet requirements. He shared that the
applicant met all neighborhood meeting and notification requirements.
Ms. Balderrama stated that if this request were to pass, all community residence
center product types would be allowed on this site. She asked how many
employees will work there.
Mr. Fedzin shared that the staff size will be around 6-8 full time employees
working regular business hours.
Mr. Goodhue stated that he has concerns with the amount of freedom this
proposed use could encompass. I stated that if it were limited to assisted living,
he could be supportive.
Ms. Hall shared that she too has concerns with the flexibility of the use.
Mr. Wise shared that he does not believe this use will have a negative impact on
the area.
Ms. Jennifer Maggiore asked what the results of the citizen participation report
was.
Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola shared the results of the report.
Mr. Eric Cashman understands that there is a great need for these facilities in
our area. However, he stated that he knows no one wants sober living facilities in
their neighborhoods.
Ms. Louisa Ward shared that he has conducted a site visit prior to the meeting.
She has concerns about the narrow roadway leading to the site.
Mr. Cashman asked if vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons were allowed to
drive down the narrow, unimproved roadway.
Mr. Simmons shared that the applicant is stipulated to improving the cul-de-sac
as part of the approval and shared that this is public right of way, so there is no
restriction that he is aware of.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Case No.
Z-49-20-3, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Ben Stewart seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Page 443
11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore, Mortensen, Popovic,
Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise, Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and Ulibarri not in favor.
Staff Comments:
None
Page 444
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 11
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-49-20-3
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street
and Sweetwater Avenue
From: R1-6
To: R-3
Acreage: 1.11
Proposal: Community Residence Center
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Representative: Matt Ihms
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 5/3/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-6.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-49-20-3, per the
Paradise Valley Village Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation, as
read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: Perez
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that
is consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the
community for disabled individuals.
2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure
that it remains compatible with the area.
Page 445
3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.
Stipulations:
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive
of carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where
adjacent to R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the
site, a landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with
drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live
cover, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished
appearance compatible with primary structures that includes material
and textural differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a
decorative element, such as tile or stamped designs.
b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height,
and wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along
the eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the
drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting
all building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public
Page 446
sidewalks utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most
direct route, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed
of decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be
provided, located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall
adhere to Appendix K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the
terminus of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the
SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does
occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard
area boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities and surrounding properties have been considered, following
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR
Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but not limited to provisions in the
latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
Page 447
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 448
Attachment E
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 7/01/2021,
at 10:00 a.m.
APPLICATION NO/ Z-49-20-3 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 970 opposition x applicant
feet north of the
northeast corner of
34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 6/03/2021 13221 North 34th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85032
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 7/01/2021 Mina Aziz/Archangel Michael Coptic
HEARING (at 10:00 a.m.) Orthodox Church
480-562-1619
frarsenyaziz@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Community concerned about openness of R-3 Zoning and process undertaken by the
Applicant to not address concerns. Applicant history of selling Community Centers.
RECEIVED BY: Tricia Gomes RECEIVED ON: 6/10/2021
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Ra’Desha Williams
Stephanie Vasquez
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
166-52-120
166-52-146
166-52-147
166-
52- 1
166-
166- 52- 1
52- 1 166-
52- 1
166- 94
52- 1
166- 52-150
166-52-151
166-03-003E
166-03-003F
166-03-003D
166-03-003B
166-03-004E
£
¤ SR51 R M P 166-03-004D
166-03-006
34TH ST 166-03-005A
Legend
6-
Zoning Petition Area 31
-2
166-03-233 166-03-011C
Proposed Amendment Area
166-03-257
166-03-228 166-03-232
166-03-230
166-03-227 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos:1/7 = 14%
166-03-234
Lots/Tracts/Condos 29
-2 % Area = 0.66ac./5.58ac. = 12%
3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
6 -
Signed Petition 16
166-03-256
Petition Verification Map
I 0 45 90 Feet
Map Page
prepared
for Z-49-20-3
452 by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 6/11/2021
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: mark atia
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 5:45 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-49-20-3 comment
Hi Mr. Simmons,
How can I submit a comment for item z-49-20-3? We missed the deadline for tonight's meeting but I would like to
submit a comment for the council to read before the June 1st vote.
My comment: "I would like to not have the rezoning approved due to all properties being single family residences. This
will increase traffic in the neighborhood and especially on 34th street making it less safe for the community. It also will
back up to the wash, where there is a local park, making it less of a family oriented park. I as k that you don't approve the
rezoning because of this."
Thank you,
Mark Atia
Sent from my mobile phone
Page 453
From: Bishoy Soliman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Fw: Z-49-20-3 comment
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:41:49 AM
Attachments: Three Quarters Vote Petition (379) - Revised 7-31-17 (1).pdf
image001.png
image001.png
Good Morning Enrique,
I am a board member of the church adjacent to this property (Z-49-20-3). Unfortunately, we did not
register in time to speak at the May 3rd meeting but there were many things I would have like to have
said opposing this rezoning application and many times I would have like to have answered some of the
questions that the committee had.
On May 9th, our priest explained how the meeting went to the congregation and announced that we
would be putting together a petition opposing the rezoning of this land. Most of the congregation seemed
like they were against this, but we did not have the petition ready for anyone to sign.
The next week, we found out that someone in the congregation had COVID and anyone in contact with
this person was requested to get tested or just stay home. Because of this COVID scare, the next two
weeks had very low attendance and we were only able to collect 18 signatures.
With this needing to be submitted ideally before May 27th, is it possible to distribute this petition
electronically and gather electronic signatures?
These are the reasons we oppose of the rezoning that are mentioned in the petition:
· Due to the wide variety of dwellings under R-3 zoning, we are very
concerned about the possibility of this land turning into something other than an assisted living facility,
(i.e. Halfway House) which could potentially become a threat to neighboring properties and also to
children at the public park across the wash from this property.
· The applicant has developed several assisted living facilities, none
of which are currently owned by the applicant. The applicant has sold every assisted living facility he has
developed, which gives us, and we hope give the committee, very little confidence that he will keep this
property and operate it as an assisted living facility.
· Approving this application with the possibility of this facility
becoming a halfway house or any type of group home would put owners of the neighboring community at
a significant disadvantage when selling their properties. Meanwhile, this applicant will reap the benefits of
having purchased single family residential land and selling it at a much higher value as a result of the
rezoning.
I will also be submitting my own letter bringing up these reasons as well as a few others on why I do not
think this rezoning will benefit the community without hurting others nearby.
Thank you,
Bishoy Soliman
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: mark atia
To: Father Arseny Aziz; Mira keddis ; Bishoy
Soliman; Bishoy Soliman
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:39:47 AM MST
Subject: Fwd: Z-49-20-3 comment
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
From: J.J. Téllez
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:34 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Subject: Comment for Rezoning Case, Item 11, Application # Z-49-20-3
Hello,
I'd like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention that the parcel owner applying for rezoning has done the bare
minimum to listen to the community and neighbor's concerns about the proposed development. The community
meeting was held back in February during working hours and only one community member attended. Meager
attendance and emailed concerns on 2/22 by Emad Zaki (below) should have signaled to the developer more needed to
be done. Additionally, the 34th Street Enclave community was not invited or notified nor any neighbors across the wash,
surrounding the park.
Rezoning opens several possibilities of 'community centers' that could evolve from developers' stated intentions of
hospice care to other more profitable operations such as sober‐living facilities within walking distance of a community
park and single family homes.
Lastly, peer‐reviewed research shows group homes have a negative impact on surrounding homes property values.
Article below:
https://doi.org/10.2307/3146956 [doi.org]
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1208/ML12088A314.pdf [nrc.gov]
Regards,
JJ Tellez,
3414 E Captain Dreyfus Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85032
From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z‐49‐20‐3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf
Dear Mr. Ihms,
I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above‐mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:
1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in‐person meeting works.
Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.
Best Regards,
Emad Zaki Page 460
Report
Located Approximately 970 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 34th Street
and Sweetwater Avenue (Ordinance G-6871)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-49-20-
3 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) for a Community Residence Center.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 1.11 acres
Proposed Use: Community Residence Center
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Representative: Matt Ihms
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on May
3, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation by a vote of 11-6.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed and a petition for a three-
quarter vote was submitted on June 10, 2021. A three-quarter vote is not required.
Location
Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 13225 N. 34th St.
Page 410
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 411
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
AF
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-49-20-3) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT).
follows:
T ____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
R SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.11 acre site located approximately 970 feet
north of the northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue in a portion of
Section 13, Township 3 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
D
“A”, is hereby changed from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-3”
(Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 412
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of
carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to
R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4.
AF
All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window
size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
5.
6.
T
The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and five
5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent
with a pedestrian environment.
Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
7.
R landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-
tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by
D the Planning and Development Department.
a.
b.
Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural
differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative
element, such as tile or stamped designs.
A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and
wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the
eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the drainage
channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all
building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks
Page 413
utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of
decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive
aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided,
located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix
K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as
AF
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus
of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
14. T
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.
A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called
Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction
R
encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no
floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does occur, then the
following requirements must be met, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
D a.
b.
The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area
boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities
and surrounding properties have been considered, following the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3).
This includes, but not limited to provisions in the latest versions of the
Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review and
approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 414
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa County
Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
AF
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July 2021.
ATTEST:
T
____________________________City Clerk
________________________________
MAYOR
R
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
D
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 415
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-49-20-3
THAT PART OF LOT 4, OASIS ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, IN
BOOK 45 OF MAPS AT PAGE 20, LOCATED WITHIN THE NORTH HALF OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 13,
TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS EAST ALONG THE
AF
WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4, A DISTANCE OF 35.58 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;
THENCE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 42 MINUTES 58 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
35.07 FEET;
T
THENCE SOUTH 68 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 59 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
31.89 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 42 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 39 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
56.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 23 DEGREES 07 MINUTES 56 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
77.99 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 06 MINUTES 12 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
R
75.10 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 25 DEGREES 10 MINUTES 24 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
58.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 20 DEGREES 54 MINUTES 49 SECONDES EAST A DISTANCE OF
D
46.86 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 04 MINUTES 46 SECONDES WEST A DISTANCE
OF 199.07 FEET TO A POINT IN THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 22 MINUTES 14 SECONDS WEST ALONG SAID
WEST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 297.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
EXCEPT THAT PORTION CONVERYED TO CITY OF PHOENIX, RECORDED
FEBRUARY 18, 2016 IN RECORDING NO 2016-103579, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 416
Page 417
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Paradise Valley Village Planning May 3, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: June 3, 2021
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
(1.11 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(1.11 acres)
Proposed Use: Community Residence Center
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Applicant and Representative: Matt Ihms
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation acre and Parks/Open Space-Publicly
Owned
Street Map Classification 34th Street Local Street 30-feet east half street
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
Per historic aerial photography, the subject site has remained vacant since it was
annexed from Maricopa County into the City of Phoenix in 1962. The development
Page 418
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
would permit a new use in the area at a scale that is compatible with the surrounding
land uses and appropriately located at the end of a local street absent of residential
homes immediately fronting it. Furthermore, this local street, 34th Street, connects to
Sweetwater Avenue, a minor collector street, which will provide easy access to other
parts of the Village.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that support
a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposal, a community residence center, is compatible with surrounding land
uses in the area which are residential and quasi-public in nature. This use allows a
new housing type that will serve individuals with disabilities in the community to
support a broad range of lifestyles. As stipulated, the development will incorporate
elements to maintain an appropriate scale with the existing neighborhood.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The development provides a reasonable level of intensity that is respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhood, which are predominantly built out and
zoned single-family and multifamily residential. The subject site is located at the end
of a local street that presently serves as primary access to residential uses in the area
and a church south of the site. The subject site is adjacent to non-residential uses,
including a church, freeway and a wash, thus no adverse impacts are anticipated on
adjacent land uses if this rezoning request is approved.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, as stipulated, will be required to provide shade along internal
pedestrian paths and the adjacent public street. This will help to encourage walking
and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by shading hard surfaces, thus cooling the
micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Page 419
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 9.
Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan: See Background Item No. 10.
State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy: See Background Item No. 11.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 12.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant / Undeveloped R1-6
Vacant / Undeveloped,
North R1-6
Indian Bend Wash
South Single-Family Residential R1-6
East (across Phoenix Indian Bend Wash
Indian Bend Park and Single-Family R1-6
Wash) Residential
West State Route 51 R1-6
R-3 – Multifamily Residential
(Subdivision Development Option)
Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Gross Acreage - 1.11 acres
Maximum Number 16 units None (Met, community residence
of Units center with 50 beds proposed)
Maximum Density Maximum 14.5 dwelling units None (Met, community residence
per acre center with 50 beds proposed)
Page 420
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Standards R-3 Requirements Proposed
Maximum Building 2 stories or 30 feet (except 2 stories or 30 feet (Met)
Height that there shall be a 15-foot
maximum height within ten
feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be
increased one foot for each
additional one foot of
building setback to the
maximum permitted height.)
Maximum Lot 45 percent 22 percent (Met)
Coverage
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet 30 feet (Met)
Rear: East 15 feet 21 feet (Met)
property line
Sides: North and 10 feet and 3 feet 15 feet and 127 feet (Met)
south property
lines
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Front: 34th Street 25 feet Not specified*
Rear and sides: 5 feet Not specified*
North, south and
east property lines
Minimum Open 5% of gross area Not specified*
Space
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 1 space per two 32 spaces provided (Square
resident/patient beds footage of office space not
(Community Residence provided)*
Center/Nursing Home) and 1
space per 300 square feet
(Office).
*Site plan revision or variance required.
Page 421
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.11 acres located approximately 970 feet north of the
northeast corner of 34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue from R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) for a
community residence center, subject to a use permit process. Community
residence centers are permitted subject to a use permit in multifamily zoning
districts, including the R-3 zoning district, while permitted by right in some of the
commercial zoning districts. The site is presently vacant and undeveloped.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The request for R-3
(Multifamily Residence
District) zoning is located in
an area surrounded by single-
family zoning, although
adjacent to non-residential
uses. These non-residential
uses include a vacant
lot/wash area (north), church
(south), State Route 51 (west)
and Phoenix Indian Bend
Wash Park (east).
Multifamily zoning is located
near the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater
Avenue, developed with a
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
single-family detached use. Department
Multifamily uses developed under the R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
zoning exists along 34th Street, less than 500 feet south of the subject site.
Access to the subject site is along 34th Street, a local street, which terminates at
the subject site. Overall, the general area has been developed with a variety of
residential uses, including single-family and multifamily, plus non-residential
uses. The proposed multifamily zoning is consistent with existing uses in the
area and will allow a new residential use to be established on the subject site
without impacting nearby residential properties due to its geographic location.
Page 422
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Parks/Open Space -Publicly Owned. The
proposal is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use map
designation, as the R-3 zoning district is consistent with Commercial and
Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre Land Use Map designations.
However, a Minor General Plan Amendment is not required since the site is
under 10 acres in size.
North and east of the site has been designated as Parks/Open-Space-Publicly
Owned and a small portion as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. South
of the site has been designated as Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
and west of the site has been designated as Transportation along State Route
51.
General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development Department
Page 423
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The development proposes a
community residence center,
subject to a use permit, on
the subject site. The
conceptual site plan shows a
single two-story building
located on the north-half of
the site, with vehicular
surface parking spaces
located on the south-half of
the site. An open space area
is proposed west of the
building, within proximity to
the eastern property line
bordering Indian Bend Wash.
Access to the site is proposed
exclusively along 34th Street,
envisioned to terminate as a
cul-de-sac to be constructed
as part of this development. A
sidewalk connecting to
Sweetwater Avenue presently
exists along most of 34th
Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
Street, located either on the
west or east side of the street.
As mentioned previously in this report, no residential uses are adjacent to the
subject site. However, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 which would limit the
location of buildings on the site away from an adjacent single-family zoned
property to the south, shall this property develop in the future as single-family.
Stipulation No. 1 would require a minimum 50-foot building setback from the
south property line, exclusive of carports or perimeter walls. A church is adjacent
to the site along the south property line, while a freeway and wash bound the
remaining property lines.
General conformance to the conceptual site plan is not proposed since zoning
variances may be requested by the applicant following the rezoning process if
site plan modifications cannot be made. Furthermore, the subject parcel is non-
symmetrical in shape and constrained by topographical features such as a wash
and freeway, thus additional flexibility during the develop review phase for the
Page 424
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
site could be beneficial. In addition, a community residence center is subject to a
use permit within the R-3 multifamily district. Use permits and variances undergo
a separate review process, subject to the Zoning Adjustment hearing process.
5. Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict various architectural features such as
pitched roofs, windows, a covered patio and four-sided architecture. Building
materials referenced in the conceptual elevations include brick façade, cement
board siding, stucco and tile roofs. The conceptual building elevations proposed
for the site depict a maximum height of two stories and 30 feet to the mid-point of
the roof. Stipulation No. 2 recommends limiting the maximum height of buildings
on site to two stories and 30 feet to help keep the building on this site consistent
with adjacent R1-6 zoning district permitted height standards.
Staff is recommending a stipulation to require building elevations to incorporate a
variety of colors, materials and textural changes. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 3. Stipulation No. 4 also recommends that all building elevations contain
architectural embellishments and detailing, including pitched roofs, and/or
overhang canopies. Stipulation Nos. 3 and 4 will ensure that the site provides
aesthetically pleasing building materials and architecture across from a public
park and adjacent to a single-family zoned property.
A conformance to the conceptual building elevations is not currently proposed as
the building elevations show no colors and since zoning variances may be
requested following the rezoning process if site plan modifications cannot be
made, which could result in a change of layout for the building. However, the
stipulations listed above will help ensure that the proposed buildings will
incorporate pleasing aesthetics, materials that will withstand the weather for
many years and architectural features consistent with those found in the adjacent
residential areas.
Page 425
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Conceptual Building Elevations, Source: Another Look LLC.
6. Landscaping, Walls and Walkways
The development features one usable open space area, northeast of the site at
approximately 12,100 square feet in area. This open space area is oriented
towards Indian Bend Wash, east of the site, and will serve to enhance the
viewscape from the wash area towards this adjacent bank. Furthermore, the R-3
zoning district requires that a minimum of 100 square feet of open space is
provided per bed in community residence centers.
In order to buffer the site from adjacent uses, increase shade and to provide an
enhanced landscape treatment along Indian Bend Wash, Stipulation No. 5
recommends enhanced plantings within landscape setbacks that include
minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
equivalent groupings and five 5-gallon shrubs per tree.
Page 426
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Stipulation No. 6 recommends that
where a landscaped median is
provided within the ingress or
egress to the site, a landscaped
accent area shall be provided. This
will help to provide a visually unique
character and provide seasonal
interest along the streetscape.
Stipulation No. 7 recommends
several wall enhancements to be
aesthetically pleasing along the
street frontage and Indian Bend
Wash. The wall enhancements
include:
x Finished appearance with
textural differences where
visible from public streets;
x Combination of view fencing
and solid walls along Indian
Bend Wash.
Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9 Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Another Look LLC.
with Planning and Development Department
recommend several pedestrian annotations
enhancements to promote walking
and safety. The enhancements
include:
x Pedestrian pathways that
connect all buildings,
community amenity areas
and public sidewalks via the
most direct route;
x Pathways constructed of
decorative pathways that
visually contrast with parking
and drive aisle surfaces.
Page 427
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
STUDIES AND POLICIES
7. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to
provide trees and enhance shade within the development. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 10 to require a minimum of 75 percent shade within pedestrian
walkways, including the public sidewalk, to encourage walking by employees and
residents by providing thermal comfort.
8. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by shading sidewalks adjacent to
the development, addressed in Stipulation No. 10. A minimum of two inverted u-
bicycle racks located near the main building entrance are recommended in
Stipulation No. 11.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
Bicycle lanes have been designed within the Sweetwater Avenue corridor; thus
Stipulation No. 11 recommends a minimum of two inverted u-bicycle racks
located near the main building entrance to promote the use of bicycling as a
means of transportations for future employees and residents of this facility.
10. Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan
The Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan was approved in 1991 to help
address the impacts of the State Route 51 (SR-51) freeway on adjacent
neighborhoods. The plan proposes ways to maximize the compatibility of the
freeway with adjacent and nearby land uses, while encouraging neighborhood
cohesion and stability. The subject site is located within Segment 5 of this
Specific Plan and was envisioned as a park within the existing and proposed
land use map, part of a larger linear park along Indian Bend Wash. Thus, the
proposal is consistent with the Piestewa Peak Freeway Specific Plan existing
and proposed land use map. However, the existing freeway noise mitigation wall
and landscape area within the SR-51 freeway portion, in addition to landscape
setbacks adjacent to the SR-51, will help mitigate any potential impacts to this
new proposed development.
Page 428
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
11. State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy
The State Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy was approved in 2011 to
help establish and protect this scenic corridor from outdoor uses, such as
outdoor storage and off-premise advertising structures, along portions of the
State Route 51 and Loop 101. The requested R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) zoning does not allow outdoor uses such as outdoor storage or off-
premise advertising structures, thus the proposal is consistent with this policy
document and will promote the vision for this scenic corridor.
12. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal
to become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of
recycling containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments
meeting certain criteria. The applicant materials indicate that recycling services
will be part of the development.
13. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing.
The proposed development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating
50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will
address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a
more sustainable fashion.
Although the proposed community residence center is not a traditional residential
use, it will allow for disabled residents to be housed and cared for at this location,
which proposes up to 50 beds as part of this facility. Shall the proposed use not
be developed on this site, the proposed zoning would permit a variety of
residential uses including single-family and multifamily.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff had not received any letters in support or
opposition to this rezoning application. Staff did receive a letter from an individual
Page 429
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
in the area that listed concerns regarding the manner in which the virtual
neighborhood meeting was held by the applicant.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire
Code with Phoenix Amendments, and the facility will require fire sprinklers and
an alarm system. Further, the Department commented that they do not know the
water supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required
to meet the required fire flow per the Phoenix Fire Code.
16. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that a sliver of the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area
(SFHA) called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM) dated December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within the sliver, then no floodplain
requirements will be required. If an encroachment does occur, Stipulation No. 14
addresses these floodplain requirements.
17. The Public Transit Department provided comments expressing the importance of
direct, clearly defined accessible, and well shaded pedestrian pathways on the
site. Shaded pathways should connect the public sidewalks with site amenities
and gathering areas. Lastly, that alternative pavement material be used where
pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles. These comments were addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 8, 9 and 10.
18. The Pedestrian Safety Coordinator with the Street Transportation Department
commented that pedestrian accesses to the site from the public sidewalk should
be attractive plus inviting, in addition to providing a shaded plus illuminated
pedestrian circulation on the site. Furthermore, that alternative paving material
be used to delineate pedestrian walkways where vehicle conflicts exist. Also, that
the public sidewalk be detached to help provide shade and thick vegetation to
discourage mid-block pedestrian crossings. Lastly, that pedestrian walkways are
marked where these are located in parking areas, and that buildings with varied
setbacks are located near sidewalks to encourage walking plus create visual
vibrancy.
Stipulation No. 6 requires a landscaped accent area where a median is provided
along the main entrance to the site to create visual vibrancy. Stipulation No. 8
addresses pedestrian pathways that connect the site to adjacent sidewalks,
while Stipulation No. 9 requires decorative pavement to be utilized in order to
visually contrast the parking surfaces. Lastly, Stipulation No. 10 requires the
Page 430
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
shading of pedestrian walkways to encourage walking. Variation in building
setbacks was not stipulated due to the unique shape of the parcel, which
constraints development on the site.
19. The Street Transportation Department requires the construction of a cul-de-sac
at the terminus of 34th Street. Furthermore, that the developer construct all
streets within and adjacent to the development with all required elements. These
are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 and 13.
OTHER
20. The site is not located in an area identified as being archaeologically sensitive. In
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 15.
21. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such
as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning
district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that is
consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the community
for disabled individuals.
2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure that
it remains compatible with the area.
3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.
Stipulations
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive of carports and
perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where adjacent to R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
Page 431
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and textural
changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored textured concrete or
stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and detailing
such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy shade
trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and five 5-gallon shrubs per
tree, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility conflicts
exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development Department on
alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the site, a
landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with drought-tolerant plant
materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live cover, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished appearance
compatible with primary structures that includes material and textural differences,
such as stucco and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or
stamped designs.
b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height, and wrought iron
view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along the eastern property lines
where open space is adjacent to the drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash)
east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting all building
entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public sidewalks utilizing the
minimum possible distance and providing the most direct route, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 432
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed of decorative
pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be provided, located
near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K,
“Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the terminus of 34th
Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) called Zone AE
Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) revised December
22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or construction encroachment including fill
within this portion of the site in the SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required.
If encroachment does occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard area boundary
limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed facilities and surrounding
properties have been considered, following the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but not limited to
provisions in the latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City
Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the Floodplain
Management section of Public Works Department for review and approval of
Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to
properly assess the materials.
Page 433
Staff Report: Z-49-20-3
April 20, 2021
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez-Gaxiola
April 20, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped September 17, 2020 (1 page)
Conceptual Elevations date stamped September 17, 2020 (2 pages)
Community Correspondence (1 page)
Page 434
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR
36TH PL
36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR
35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L
35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE
32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan
PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E
33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97
CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04
SWEETWATER AVE
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 435
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
C-2
34T H
C-2 *
Z-SP-7-84
RD
PL I O
E S ID
PR
33R D
R-5
DELCO A DR
36TH PL
36TH STREET
ST SUTTON DR
35T H P
R-5 *
Z-SP-28-69
L
35TH ST
C-O
EMILE ZOLA AVE
32ND ST
WILLOW AVE
R1-6
36TH ST
ANDORA DR £
¤
Squaw
R-2* Peak Freeway
R1-6 SP
Z-SP-13-87
Z-129-96 Specific Plan
PERSHING AVE
SURREY AV E
33RD PL 34TH ST
ROVEEN AVE
R1-6
Z-67-97
CAPTAIN DREYFUS AVE R-2 PRD *
Z-164-04
SWEETWATER AVE Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
Z-49-20
UNION HILLS DR
Miles
A W P EA K PKWY (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07 GREENWAY RD
PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 3 CACTUS RD
SCOTTSDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU
16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S
TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Matt Ihms
FROM:
R1-6 ( 1.11 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
12/09/2020
Z-49-20 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.11 Acres QS 32-35 L-10 TO: R-3 ( 1.11 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6 6 7
R-3 16 19
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 436
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-49-20.mxd
Page 437
Page 438
Page 439
From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z-49-20-3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf
Dear Mr. Ihms,
I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above-mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:
1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in-person meeting works.
Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.
Best Regards,
Emad Zaki
Page 440
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-49-20-3
Date of VPC Meeting May 3, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District)
Request To R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Use Community Residence Center
Location Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of
34th Street and Sweetwater Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation.
VPC Vote 11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore,
Mortensen, Popovic, Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise,
Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and
Ulibarri not in favor.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed over time, the General Plan Land Use
Map designation and character of the surrounding area. Mr. Simmons went over
conceptual site plans and elevations as well as proposed standards. Further, Mr.
Simmons covered a series of stipulations tied to the case.
Chairman Robert Gubser asked staff is the stipulations included a general
conformance stip to the site plans or elevations.
Mr. Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola, staff, shared that there are no general
conformance stipulations due to the required zoning adjustments the applicant
will need to apply for after this case is approved.
Ms. Larisa Balderrama stated that he has concerns with this use being located
in such close proximity to single-family homes.
Mr. Paul Severs asked how many residences will be allowed to be housed in
this facility.
Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola stated that the applicant could speak to this during his
presentation.
Applicant Presentation:
Page 441
Mr. Thomas Fedzin, applicant, provide a thorough background on his business
model. He shared that this house will provide housing for elder care and assisted
living. He emphasized that this is not a sober living home. He stated that up to 40
residence could reside int eh home at one time and the square footage of the
structure is about 14k square feet in size.
Mr. Robert Goodhue asked if this were a mix of independent and assisted living.
Mr. Fedzin shared that it could be a mix.
Mr. Goodhue asked why the two groups would be separated.
Mr. Fedzin shared that those uses fall under the same license. The separation
was for staffing purposes as each staff set has area of expertise.
Ms. Toby Gerst asked Mr. Fedzin to please define “wellness center”, as
referenced in the applicant’s presentation. She also asked if there were a limited
number of beds for Medicade patience.
Mr. Fedzin defined “wellness center” and expanded on the number of beds that
would be allowed under Medicade.
Vicechair Joe Lesher shared that he had looked up Solace Hospice and they
have outstanding reviews. He also stated that the existing facilities on the
website look very nice.
Mr. Alex Popovic asked if his company has entered into a Public Private
Partnership with the City of Phoenix for this proposal.
Mr. Fedzin stated that no Public Private Partnership has been discussed with the
Mr. Popovic asked the applicant if he had developed in other areas or if this was
his first venture in this industry.
Mr. Fedzin shared that yes, he has built from the ground up in Surprise,
Goodyear and Peoria.
Mr. Popovic asked is he has sold them or if he retains them and manages them.
He also asked if there were 3rd party operators.
Mr. Fedzin explained that they retain them. He stated that they build a good staff
and intern provide a high quality product.
Mr. Popovic asked what community outreach was done prior to coming to this
committee tonight.
Mr. Fedzin shared that they had a neighborhood meeting and send out
neighborhood notification letters.
Page 442
Ms. Jennifer Hall asked if there were any persons present voicing opposition at
the neighborhood meeting.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that one letter in opposition was received
prior to the staff report being posted. He also shared a citizen participation report
was submitted as part of the rezoning packet requirements. He shared that the
applicant met all neighborhood meeting and notification requirements.
Ms. Balderrama stated that if this request were to pass, all community residence
center product types would be allowed on this site. She asked how many
employees will work there.
Mr. Fedzin shared that the staff size will be around 6-8 full time employees
working regular business hours.
Mr. Goodhue stated that he has concerns with the amount of freedom this
proposed use could encompass. I stated that if it were limited to assisted living,
he could be supportive.
Ms. Hall shared that she too has concerns with the flexibility of the use.
Mr. Wise shared that he does not believe this use will have a negative impact on
the area.
Ms. Jennifer Maggiore asked what the results of the citizen participation report
was.
Mr. Bojórquez Gaxiola shared the results of the report.
Mr. Eric Cashman understands that there is a great need for these facilities in
our area. However, he stated that he knows no one wants sober living facilities in
their neighborhoods.
Ms. Louisa Ward shared that he has conducted a site visit prior to the meeting.
She has concerns about the narrow roadway leading to the site.
Mr. Cashman asked if vehicles weighing in excess of 3 tons were allowed to
drive down the narrow, unimproved roadway.
Mr. Simmons shared that the applicant is stipulated to improving the cul-de-sac
as part of the approval and shared that this is public right of way, so there is no
restriction that he is aware of.
MOTION:
Mr. Alex Popovic made a motion to recommend approval of Rezoning Case No.
Z-49-20-3, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Ben Stewart seconded the motion.
VOTE:
Page 443
11-6 with committee members Cantor, Hall, Maggiore, Mortensen, Popovic,
Severs, Stewart, Ward, Wise, Gubser and Lesher in favor. Committee members
Balderrama, Cashman, Gerst, Goodhue, Mazza and Ulibarri not in favor.
Staff Comments:
None
Page 444
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 11
DISTRICT NO.: 3
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-49-20-3
Location: Approximately 970 feet north of the northeast corner of 34th Street
and Sweetwater Avenue
From: R1-6
To: R-3
Acreage: 1.11
Proposal: Community Residence Center
Applicant: Matt Ihms
Owner: Fedzin Enterprises, LLC
Representative: Matt Ihms
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 5/3/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-6.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Paradise Valley Village
Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-49-20-3, per the
Paradise Valley Village Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation, as
read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: Perez
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. This proposed development provides a new non-traditional housing option that
is consistent with surrounding developments and serves a need in the
community for disabled individuals.
2. The development, as stipulated, will maintain an appropriate scale to ensure
that it remains compatible with the area.
Page 445
3. This development proposes to develop an asymmetrical parcel that is bounded
by a wash and freeway with a use that is consistent with the goals of the State
Route 51 & Loop 101 Scenic Corridor Policy plan.
Stipulations:
1. The development shall maintain a minimum 50-foot building setback, exclusive
of carports and perimeter walls, from the southern site boundary where
adjacent to R1-6 zoning.
2. The maximum building height shall be limited to 2 stories and 30 feet.
3. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, to provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. All elevations of the building(s) shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, pitched roofs and/or overhang canopies, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The required landscape setbacks shall include minimum 2-inch caliper large
canopy shade trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, and
five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
6. Where a landscaped median is provided within the ingress or egress to the
site, a landscaped accent area shall provide a visually unique character with
drought-tolerant plant materials providing seasonal interest and 75 percent live
cover, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. Perimeter walls shall be constructed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Perimeter walls visible from public streets shall have a finished
appearance compatible with primary structures that includes material
and textural differences, such as stucco and/or split face block with a
decorative element, such as tile or stamped designs.
b. A combination of solid masonry wall not exceeding 4 feet in height,
and wrought iron view fencing or similar material shall be utilized along
the eastern property lines where open space is adjacent to the
drainage channel/floodway (Indian Bend Wash) east of the site.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided connecting
all building entrances and exits, community amenity areas, and all public
Page 446
sidewalks utilizing the minimum possible distance and providing the most
direct route, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways, constructed
of decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the adjacent parking and
drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
10. Pedestrian walkways, including adjacent public sidewalks, shall be shaded to a
minimum of 75 percent, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
11. A minimum of two inverted U-bicycle racks or artistic style racks shall be
provided, located near the main building entrance. All bicycle racks shall
adhere to Appendix K, “Outdoor/Open Facilities”, of the Comprehensive
Bicycle Master Plan, and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
12. The developer shall construct a minimum 45-foot radius cul-de-sac at the
terminus of 34th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
14. A portion of this parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)
called Zone AE Floodplain, on panels 1735L of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) revised December 22, 2017. If the plans show no building and/or
construction encroachment including fill within this portion of the site in the
SFHA, then no floodplain requirements will be required. If encroachment does
occur, then the following requirements must be met, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. The Architect/Engineer is required to show the special flood hazard
area boundary limits on plans and ensure that impacts to the proposed
facilities and surrounding properties have been considered, following
the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Regulations (44 CFR
Paragraph 60.3). This includes, but not limited to provisions in the
latest versions of the Floodplain Ordinance of the Phoenix City Code.
b. A copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan needs to be submitted to the
Floodplain Management section of Public Works Department for review
and approval of Floodplain requirements prior to issuance of a Grading
Permit.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
Page 447
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE
WAIVER SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDER'S OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED
IN THE REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact
Tamra Ingersoll at (602) 534-6648, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 448
Attachment E
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 7/01/2021,
at 10:00 a.m.
APPLICATION NO/ Z-49-20-3 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Approximately 970 opposition x applicant
feet north of the
northeast corner of
34th Street and
Sweetwater Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 6/03/2021 13221 North 34th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85032
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 7/01/2021 Mina Aziz/Archangel Michael Coptic
HEARING (at 10:00 a.m.) Orthodox Church
480-562-1619
frarsenyaziz@gmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Community concerned about openness of R-3 Zoning and process undertaken by the
Applicant to not address concerns. Applicant history of selling Community Centers.
RECEIVED BY: Tricia Gomes RECEIVED ON: 6/10/2021
Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
Ra’Desha Williams
Stephanie Vasquez
David Urbinato
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Village Planner
Samantha Keating
Paul M. Li
GIS
Applicant
Page 449
Page 450
Page 451
166-52-120
166-52-146
166-52-147
166-
52- 1
166-
166- 52- 1
52- 1 166-
52- 1
166- 94
52- 1
166- 52-150
166-52-151
166-03-003E
166-03-003F
166-03-003D
166-03-003B
166-03-004E
£
¤ SR51 R M P 166-03-004D
166-03-006
34TH ST 166-03-005A
Legend
6-
Zoning Petition Area 31
-2
166-03-233 166-03-011C
Proposed Amendment Area
166-03-257
166-03-228 166-03-232
166-03-230
166-03-227 # of Lots/Tracts/Condos:1/7 = 14%
166-03-234
Lots/Tracts/Condos 29
-2 % Area = 0.66ac./5.58ac. = 12%
3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
6 -
Signed Petition 16
166-03-256
Petition Verification Map
I 0 45 90 Feet
Map Page
prepared
for Z-49-20-3
452 by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 6/11/2021
Attachment F
David O Simmons
From: mark atia
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 5:45 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-49-20-3 comment
Hi Mr. Simmons,
How can I submit a comment for item z-49-20-3? We missed the deadline for tonight's meeting but I would like to
submit a comment for the council to read before the June 1st vote.
My comment: "I would like to not have the rezoning approved due to all properties being single family residences. This
will increase traffic in the neighborhood and especially on 34th street making it less safe for the community. It also will
back up to the wash, where there is a local park, making it less of a family oriented park. I as k that you don't approve the
rezoning because of this."
Thank you,
Mark Atia
Sent from my mobile phone
Page 453
From: Bishoy Soliman
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Fw: Z-49-20-3 comment
Date: Tuesday, May 25, 2021 8:41:49 AM
Attachments: Three Quarters Vote Petition (379) - Revised 7-31-17 (1).pdf
image001.png
image001.png
Good Morning Enrique,
I am a board member of the church adjacent to this property (Z-49-20-3). Unfortunately, we did not
register in time to speak at the May 3rd meeting but there were many things I would have like to have
said opposing this rezoning application and many times I would have like to have answered some of the
questions that the committee had.
On May 9th, our priest explained how the meeting went to the congregation and announced that we
would be putting together a petition opposing the rezoning of this land. Most of the congregation seemed
like they were against this, but we did not have the petition ready for anyone to sign.
The next week, we found out that someone in the congregation had COVID and anyone in contact with
this person was requested to get tested or just stay home. Because of this COVID scare, the next two
weeks had very low attendance and we were only able to collect 18 signatures.
With this needing to be submitted ideally before May 27th, is it possible to distribute this petition
electronically and gather electronic signatures?
These are the reasons we oppose of the rezoning that are mentioned in the petition:
· Due to the wide variety of dwellings under R-3 zoning, we are very
concerned about the possibility of this land turning into something other than an assisted living facility,
(i.e. Halfway House) which could potentially become a threat to neighboring properties and also to
children at the public park across the wash from this property.
· The applicant has developed several assisted living facilities, none
of which are currently owned by the applicant. The applicant has sold every assisted living facility he has
developed, which gives us, and we hope give the committee, very little confidence that he will keep this
property and operate it as an assisted living facility.
· Approving this application with the possibility of this facility
becoming a halfway house or any type of group home would put owners of the neighboring community at
a significant disadvantage when selling their properties. Meanwhile, this applicant will reap the benefits of
having purchased single family residential land and selling it at a much higher value as a result of the
rezoning.
I will also be submitting my own letter bringing up these reasons as well as a few others on why I do not
think this rezoning will benefit the community without hurting others nearby.
Thank you,
Bishoy Soliman
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: mark atia
To: Father Arseny Aziz
Soliman
Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021, 10:39:47 AM MST
Subject: Fwd: Z-49-20-3 comment
Page 454
Page 455
Page 456
Page 457
Page 458
Page 459
From: J.J. Téllez
Sent: Tuesday, June 1, 2021 9:34 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Subject: Comment for Rezoning Case, Item 11, Application # Z-49-20-3
Hello,
I'd like to bring to the Planning Commission's attention that the parcel owner applying for rezoning has done the bare
minimum to listen to the community and neighbor's concerns about the proposed development. The community
meeting was held back in February during working hours and only one community member attended. Meager
attendance and emailed concerns on 2/22 by Emad Zaki (below) should have signaled to the developer more needed to
be done. Additionally, the 34th Street Enclave community was not invited or notified nor any neighbors across the wash,
surrounding the park.
Rezoning opens several possibilities of 'community centers' that could evolve from developers' stated intentions of
hospice care to other more profitable operations such as sober‐living facilities within walking distance of a community
park and single family homes.
Lastly, peer‐reviewed research shows group homes have a negative impact on surrounding homes property values.
Article below:
https://doi.org/10.2307/3146956 [doi.org]
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1208/ML12088A314.pdf [nrc.gov]
Regards,
JJ Tellez,
3414 E Captain Dreyfus Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85032
From: Emad Zaki
To: matt.ihms@gmail.com
Cc: David O Simmons; Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Case Z‐49‐20‐3
Date: Monday, February 22, 2021 12:39:10 PM
Attachments: Rezoning Letter .pdf
Dear Mr. Ihms,
I am attaching a copy of the letter you mailed regarding the above‐mentioned case. I have few
concerns that I would like to address:
1. The meeting is scheduled on a work day at 9AM, this is going to prevent a lot of
the neighborhood members from attending. My experience with these meeting that it is
usually scheduled after regular work hours.
2. The way this is set does not give the members an access to the meeting until they
request it from you, this is another concern as members should have a direct link to
access the meeting same as in‐person meeting works.
Please consider the above concerns as it interferes with the main purpose of this meetings to
allow the neighbors to voice their opinions and address their concerns. It would be great if you
can reschedule this meeting for another day after 5PM and to have a direct link for anyone
who would like to attend.
Please also let me know if you can provide me with the mailing list to make sure that our
neighbors all got the letter, and if they share the same concerns we have.
Best Regards,
Emad Zaki Page 460
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Planning Hearing Officer Application
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 - Approximately 400 Feet East of the Southeast Corner of I-
17 and Arroyo Norte Drive (Ordinance G-6873)
Request to hold a public hearing on the item and consider adoption of the Planning
Commission recommendation on June 3, 2021.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203, LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
Proposal:
1. Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for approval by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
3. Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Concurrence
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021 meeting and continued the item
by a vote of 5-0. The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their
April 13, 2021 meeting recommend approval by a vote of 4-2.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on April 21, 2021 and
recommended approval, with a modification and additional stipulations.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with an
additional stipulation.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on June 9, 2021 requiring
that a public hearing be held on this item.
Page 461
Location
Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 462
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE
FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-48-07-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-4948.
____________
AF
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
T
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately
400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive in a portion of
Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
R
STIPULATIONS:
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
D Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site plan(s) and
elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28, 2021, WITH
SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass and
style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
Page 463
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD NOT
BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED JUDICIOUSLY AND
WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural desert
context.
A MINIMUM OF TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS,
SHADED TO A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT, SHALL BE PROVIDED
FROM THE CLOSEST PARKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND
CONNECTING TO NORTH WHISPER LANE ON THE SOUTH AND
ARROYO NORTE DRIVE ON THE NORTH.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are not
directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d.
e.
AF
Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break up
T
the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses to
adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17, such as
innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers, and
increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
R development and at a minimum include the following:
i. Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
D ii.
iii.
iv.
Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as walls
interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and finished with
materials similar to those of the buildings’ architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Page 464
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan approval
for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of the
freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
5. That 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 or
modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
AF
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary based
on the results of the survey.
T
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be notified by
the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of any PLANNING
AND Development Services Department preliminary site plan meetings; Zoning
Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
Rb.
c.
Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
Terry Marron
D8.
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER SHALL BE
RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING
APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-4948, this portion of the rezoning is now
Page 465
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-4948 and as modified
in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject
site until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
2021.
AF
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July,
ATTEST:
T ________________________________
MAYOR
R
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 466
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21-- Z-48-07-1
A PORTION OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE
GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
DEED RECORDED IN DOCUMENT 050507564, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF TRACT “C”, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT FOR “ARROYO NORTE –
UNIT 4”, RECORDED IN BOOK 1004, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT “C”, SOUTH 00
DEGREES 05 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, 1004.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST, 150.00 FEET;
AF
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, 150.00 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT “D”, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL
PLAT FOR “ANTHEM UNIT 57”;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF TRACT “D”, NORTH 89 DEGREES 59
MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST,
T
535.68 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST, 247.46 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, 894.37 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 23 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST, 50.24 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ARROYO NORTE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 12 SECONDS, 12.54 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, 25.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 55.00 FEET;
R
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, 25.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 606.15 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
D
CONTAINING 691,062 SQ. FT. OR 15.8646 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Page 467
Page 468
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
APPLICATION #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
EXISTING ZONING: C-2
ACREAGE: 16.0
REQUEST: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
APPLICANT: Law Office of David Cisiewski
OWNER: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval with a modification and additional stipulations, as recommended by the
Planning Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on April 21, 2021 and recommended
approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site is located on 16 acres approximately 400 feet east of the southeast
corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive and is zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial). The
applicant’s request only affects a portion of the 46.65 gross acres included in the original
rezoning request (Z-48-07-1).
Page 469
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
The proposed site plan depicts a 170-unit multifamily complex consisting of detached,
stand-alone, single-story, bungalow-style residences at a density of 12.2 dwelling units
per gross acre. The proposed site plan depicts private backyards, covered parking, and
private open spaces including a linear central park, a pool, and connected pedestrian
pathways, constituting a total of 7.4 percent open space.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for approval by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 to develop the multifamily community on a
portion of the rezoning site. The applicant stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan or elevations for the overall site.
The applicant has provided the following justifications for their requests:
x Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being met through the revised
desert color palette.
x Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e
regarding parking areas are more relevant to the development of a commercial
shopping center, which was assumed to be the most likely future land use in the
original rezoning case.
x Stipulation 1.f, regarding consideration of the site design for potential residential
uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17 is being met with an approximate 500-foot
setback from the I-17 frontage road.
x Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being met with the building
elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan. The applicant noted that a comprehensive sign plan would be
relevant if the larger site was being developed with multiple commercial uses and
requested that the comprehensive sign plan requirement exclude residential uses. The
applicant added that comprehensive sign plans are typically required in large commercial
developments rather than individual residential developments.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On August 29, 2007, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1
for a change from C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) and R1-8 (Single-Family Residence) to C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) on a 46.65 gross acre property located at the southeast
corner of Interstate 17 and Teresa Lane, subject to stipulations. The case was heard
concurrently with GPA-NWPA-1-06-1 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the subject property from Undesignated to Commercial.
These original cases were processed concurrent with the property’s annexation into the
City and the intent was to allow a commercial development on the site. However, the
possibility that residential uses may be developed was considered, as evidenced by the
conditions of Stipulation 1.f. The original rezoning case did not include a site plan or
elevations, resulting in Stipulation 1 requiring conceptual site plan, elevations and
architectural theme be approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public
Page 470
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
hearing process and establishing 7 criteria (Stipulations 1.a-1.g) for review. These
criteria included considerations relevant to the potential development of commercial land
uses including but not limited to drive-through design, shaded walkways on commercial
buildings, and commercial parking lot design. However, Stipulation 1.f addresses the
potential for residential land uses to develop in the C-2 zoning district and required
consideration of innovative site design, enhanced setbacks, sound barriers, and
landscaping to mitigate impacts from the proximity of the I-17.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Thirty-two letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns
expressed in the correspondence include the following:
x Increase in traffic along the I-17 frontage road (20 emails);
x The proposed development does not provide adequate amenities and open space
which may contribute to unintended use and degradation of existing amenities in
the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east (16 emails);
x Potential overflow parking along Arroyo Norte Drive (13 emails);
x Development is not consistent or compatible with the character of existing
developments in the surrounding area (10 emails);
x Density is too high and incompatible with existing developments in the surrounding
area (10 emails);
x The proposed name of the development will create confusion by inferring a
connection to the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east, located in Maricopa County
jurisdiction (8 emails);
x Increase in safety hazards due to emergency vehicles’ inability to access existing
neighborhoods (8 emails);
x Development does not meet the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines (2 emails)
x Lack of an approved Traffic Study (6 emails)
x The development will create negative impacts regarding nearby washes during
rain events (3 emails);
x Increase in fire hazards (3 emails);
x The development will burden existing water infrastructure in the surrounding area
(2 emails);
x Increase in crime rate resulting from lower income housing options (2 emails);
x Public notification sign for the Planning Hearing Officer hearing was not readily
visible (1 email);
x Decrease in property values (1 email).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Commercial
Page 471
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: C-2 Vacant
North: C-2 Vacant
(Across Arroyo Norte Drive)
South: County (R1-6) Single-family residential
East: County (R1-6) Single-family residential
West: C-2 Vacant
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021
meeting and continued the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting by a vote of 5 to 0. The
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting
and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 2.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with commercial
uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in the original application,
it was unknown at the time how the site would ultimately develop, what specific
uses would be implemented, and the scale and intensity of future development.
Therefore, Stipulation 1 was adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review
through the public hearing process once these became available. However, this
stipulation did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as
permitted in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly
addressed this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on
potential residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit multifamily
complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences. The proposed
density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less than the 17.40 dwelling
units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD development option with bonus
points. The proposed height is less than the two stories and 30 feet permitted in
the R-3 PRD development option. Proposed open space is approximately 1.18
acres or 7.4 percent of the gross site area, which is greater than the minimum 5
percent required. The proposed residences are detached stand-alone units rather
than a traditional multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the
proposal is appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent
with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and creates
Page 472
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
a buffer between existing single-family development to the east, adjacent
commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the review of the
site plan and elevations. General conformance to the proposed conceptual site
plan and elevations is recommended as discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations regarding
building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. This
stipulation was originally intended to address the potential development of the site
with multiple commercial uses. With the conversion of this stipulation to general
conformance for the proposed residential development, these concerns are not
wholly relevant. However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate
level of consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative window
treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate for a
desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof tiles.
Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco. Accent colors
are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color palette
intended to address concerns raised during public outreach regarding the
compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations submitted with the
request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue, and red accent doors and a
Mediterranean palette. However, the revised elevations were limited to single-
perspective renderings, did not incorporate the new door colors on the revised
palette, and did not include the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the
original submittal. Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that
addresses the use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting
reflective materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette as there
is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are addressed in
the applicant’s submittal as follows:
a) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is located along
Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road, which will allow a
continuous perimeter wall along the west property line. No units front the west
property line and there are private yards located along this area.
Page 473
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
b) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-17
frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between the I-17
and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large parcel, subject to the
stipulations of this case, and an approximately 70-foot wide drainage channel.
c) Sound barriers – A six-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the west
perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does not contain
the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
d) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a variety of
large and medium canopy shade trees along the west property line in open
spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow, oak, and ash. However, the
majority of the west property line consists of private yards and trees are not
depicted. The fact that the subject property does not contain the parcel
adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced
landscaping standards in this area. The property is subject to existing
Ordinance standards for landscaping in multifamily developments. The
remaining parcel between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this
stipulation and landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for
these plans.
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that were
relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple commercial users.
Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the considerations are reflected in the
conceptual elevations and the recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was relevant to the
assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would develop with multiple
commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant to the development of the site
with a single multifamily development. The applicant’s request to modify this
stipulation is recommended to be approved with a modification to the standard
language to specify that this requirement is only relevant to development
proposals for commercial land uses.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
Page 474
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i) Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii) Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii) Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
Page 475
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
iv) Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as
walls interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and
finished with materials similar to those of the buildings’
architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
5. That 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
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior
to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
Page 476
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be approved with a modification and additional
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
EXHIBITS
A – Appeal Documents (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (39 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-4948 from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (8 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped January 28, 2021 (1 pages)
H – Proposed Elevations date stamped January 28, 2021 (13 pages)
I – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from March 9, 2021 (6 pages)
J – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from April 13, 2021 (12 pages)
K – PHO Summary for PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 (11 pages)
L – Public Correspondence (95 pages)
Page 477
(;+,%,7$
Page 478
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
PHO HEARING DATE: 4/21/2021 RECEIVED: 4/28/2021
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING 6/3/2021 at 6:00 p.m.
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
7/1/2021 at 10:00 a.m.
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS: PHONE:
Richard Zimmerman 602-527-6938
46026 North 35th Avenue
New River, Arizona 85087
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The development backs street infrastructure. The area lacks Fire/Police
infrastructure. The frontage road is a fatality waiting to happen. This is irresponsible of
C.O.P. to develop this area before the infrastructure is in place to support it.
TAKEN BY: Eric Morales, Planner II
c: Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
$GDP6WUDQLHUL
Danielle Jordan
5D 'HVKD:LOOLDPV
Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
JuliH*DUFLD
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2021\PHO Appeal Form.doc
Page 479
Page 480
(;+,%,7%
Page 481
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CISIEWSKI, PLLC
1 1 8 1 1 N o r t h T a t u m B l v d , S u i t e 1 0 5 1 , P h o e n i x , A Z 8 5 0 2 8
Telephone: 602.953.8729 Facsimile: 602.997.9807 Email: dave@dclawaz.com Web: www.dclawaz.com
)HEUXDU\
3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
&LW\RI3KRHQL[
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:HVW:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHWQG)ORRU
3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
5H $SSOLFDWLRQIRU6DWLVIDFWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQV 5HYLVHG
=RQLQJ&DVH =
3URMHFW±$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWH
'HDU3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
7KLV ILUP UHSUHVHQWV )'* $FTXLVLWLRQV //& ³)'*´ WKH GHYHORSHU RI $ULVH $UUR\R
1RUWHDXQLWOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\ WKH³3URMHFW´RU³&RPPXQLW\´ 7KH
3URMHFW LV SURSRVHG WR EH GHYHORSHG XSRQ DQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ DFUH SRUWLRQ RI D DFUH
SDUFHO 0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶V3DUFHO- ORFDWHGHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI
WKH , )URQWDJH 5RDG DQG $UUR\R 1RUWH 'ULYH WKH ³3URSHUW\´ RU ³6LWH´ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ
SRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWFRQWDLQLQJWKH3URSHUW\ WKH³5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO´ DUHQRWSURSRVHGIRU
GHYHORSPHQWDWWKLVWLPH$DHULDOSKRWRRIWKH3URSHUW\DQGWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHODUHSURYLGHG
EHORZ
Page 482
7KH HQWLUHW\ RI WKH 3URSHUW\ DQG WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DUH FXUUHQWO\ YDFDQW DQG
XQGHYHORSHG7KURXJKWKLV$SSOLFDWLRQWKH$SSOLFDQWLVSURSRVLQJWRGHYHORSDXQLWOX[XU\
VLQJOHIDPLO\ UHQWDO FRPPXQLW\ XSRQ WKH 3URSHUW\ 7KH 3URMHFW ZLOO SURYLGH QHZ DQG PRUH
GLYHUVH KRXVLQJ RSWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKLV DUHD RI WKH &LW\ DV D EHQHILW WR WKH RYHUDOO UHVLGHQWLDO
FKDUDFWHURIWKHDUHD
$ %DFNJURXQG
7KH 3URSHUW\ DV ZHOO DV WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZHUH SDUW RI ]RQLQJ FDVH =
³5H]RQLQJ´ ZKLFKZDVDSSURYHGE\WKH3KRHQL[&LW\&RXQFLORQ -XO\DV2UGLQDQFH
1R* $FRS\RIWKH5H]RQLQJLVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV ([KLELW$7KH5H]RQLQJFKDQJHG
WKH ODQG XVH GHVLJQDWLRQV RQ DFUHV IURP & 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO DQG 5
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQFH WR& ,QWHUPHGLDWH&RPPHUFLDO 7KHDUHDVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
LVGHSLFWHGRQWKHPDSEHORZ$WWKHWLPHRIWKH5H]RQLQJWKHUHZDVQRVSHFLILFGHYHORSPHQW
SODQ IRU WKH 3URSHUW\ RU WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DQG WKHUHIRUH VWLSXODWLRQV ZHUH LQFOXGHG WR
DGGUHVV IXWXUH DSSURYDO RI WKH VLWH SODQV DQG HOHYDWLRQV IRU WKH VHSDUDWH SDUFHOV WKDW ZHUH
LQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIWKH5H]RQLQJ$WWKHFXUUHQWWLPHWKHUHLVQRSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKH
5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DQG WKLV $SSOLFDWLRQ UHODWHV RQO\ WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI 5H]RQLQJ VWLSXODWLRQV
IRUWKH3URSHUW\
% 6XUURXQGLQJ8VHV =RQLQJ
7KHH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJDQGODQGXVHVVXUURXQGLQJWKH3URSHUW\DUHDVIROORZVDQGVKRZQDERYHRQ
WKH=RQLQJ0DS
'LUHFWLRQ =RQLQJ 8VH
1RUWK & &LW\RI3KRHQL[ 9DFDQW
(DVW 5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\ 6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $UUR\R1RUWH
6RXWK 5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\ 6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $QWKHP8QLW
:HVW & &LW\RI3KRHQL[ 9DFDQW
Page 483
& 3URSRVHG5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ
$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWHLVDOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\FHQWHUHGDURXQGDODUJH
FHQWUDO SDUN DQG DPHQLW\ DUHD 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV ZLOO LQFOXGH DQG
EHGURRPXQLWVZLWKSULYDWHHQWULHVDQGJDWHGUHDU\DUGV7KH&RPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVZLOOLQFOXGH
DSRROFDEDQDVDGRJSDUNDQGRWKHUVPDOOHUSDUNVDQGFRPPRQDUHDVGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDV\DFFHVVWRRSHQVSDFHIRUDOOUHVLGHQWV7KHPDLQHQWU\ZLOOEHDWWKH
QRUWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLWKDVHFRQGDU\HJUHVVRQO\DFFHVVGULYHDWWKHQRUWKHDVW
FRUQHURIWKH3URSHUW\$FFHVVWRWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVLVSURYLGHGYLDDORRSURDGWKDWWUDYHUVHWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDVHYHKLFXODUDFFHVVWRDOOWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDQGWKHSDUNLQJDUHDV
)XUWKHU3URMHFWVSHFLILFGHWDLOVLQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
8QLW6XPPDU\8QLW
6T)W %HG%DWK RI8QLWV 0L[
3ODQ
3ODQ
3ODQ )/(;
3ODQ
7RWDO
3DUNLQJ6XPPDU\5HTXLUHG3DUNLQJ 3URYLGHG3DUNLQJ
VSDFHVSHUXQLW $VVLJQHGFDUSRUWVSDFHV
$VVLJQHGJDUDJHVSDFHV
8QDVVLJQHGVSDFHV
/HDVLQJ2IILFH
7RWDO
6LWH&RYHUDJH7\SH 6T)W $FUHV 7RWDO
%XLOGLQJ&RYHUDJH
5RDGV 3DUNLQJ
3ULYDWH$PHQLWLHV
'UDLQDJH(DVHPHQW
7RWDO
7KH IROORZLQJ ([KLELWV DUH DWWDFKHG WR WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ WR LOOXVWUDWH WKH SURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQW
GHVLJQHOHPHQWVIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\DQGVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHTXLVLWH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
([KLELW%6LWH3ODQ
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
Page 484
' 7H[WRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQVDQG6DWLVIDFWLRQ5DWLRQDOH
6R DV WR SURYLGH IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 3URSHUW\ LQ FRQIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKH VWLSXODWLRQV VHW
IRUWK LQ WKH 5H]RQLQJ ³=RQLQJ 6WLSXODWLRQ´ WKH $SSOLFDQW RIIHUV WKH IROORZLQJ UDWLRQDOH LQ
VDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
7KDW FRQFHSWXDO VLWH SODQ V DQG HOHYDWLRQV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG E\ WKH 3ODQQLQJ +HDULQJ
2IILFHU WKURXJK D SXEOLF KHDULQJ SURFHVV SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV 'HSDUWPHQW
SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ DSSURYDO 7KH VLWH SODQ V DQG HOHYDWLRQV VKDOO LQFOXGH WKH
IROORZLQJ
D (OHYDWLRQV ZKLFK SURYLGH DUFKLWHFWXUDO FRQVLVWHQF\ LQ EXLOGLQJ PDVV DQG VW\OH ZDOO
WUHDWPHQWVOLJKWLQJDQGVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ WKH %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV
DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW ' WKH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV DV ZHOO DV WKH RWKHU
VWUXFWXUHV ZLWKLQ WKH &RPPXQLW\ SURYLGH DQ DHVWKHWLFDOO\ SOHDVLQJ DUFKLWHFWXUDO
WKHPH XVLQJ QHXWUDO WRQHV DQG DFFHQW FRORUV 7KH SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJV SURYLGH D
FRKHVLYHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IHDWXULQJVWXFFRH[WHULRU
ZDOOV FRPSOLPHQWDU\ WLOH URRIV DQG DFFHQW ZLGRZ DQG GRRU WUHDWPHQWV $OO
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVZLOOEHVLQJOHVWRU\GHVLJQZLWKDSULYDWHUHDU\DUG
7KH &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH IRU D SHULPHWHU PDVRQU\ ZDOO ZLWK DUFKLWHFWXUDO
HOHPHQWVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKHGHVLJQHOHPHQWVUHIOHFWHGRQWKH
%XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV DV GHSLFWHG RQ WKH 'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV
([KLELW)7KH&RPPXQLW\ZLOODOVRLQFOXGLQJOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVWRSURYLGHIRUVWUHHW
OLJKWLQJSDWKZD\DQGDUHDOLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQWODQGVFDSLQJOLJKWLQJXVLQJXQLIRUP
IL[WXUHVZLWKVXFKIL[WXUHVEHLQJDVGHSLFWHGRQ([KLELW)
E 7KHSULPDU\ILQLVKLQJPDWHULDOVIRUEXLOGLQJVVKDOOFRQVLVWRIQDWXUDOGHVHUWPDWHULDOV
ZKLFKDUHDSSURSULDWHIRUWKHQDWXUDOGHVHUWFRQWH[W
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ WKH 0DWHULDOV &RORU 3ODQ
DWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW(WKHPDWHULDOVSURSRVHGIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\EXLOGLQJV
FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOO LQ D ³6QRZERXQG´ FRORU WKURXJKRXW WKH 3URMHFW
(DFK EXLOGLQJ ZLOO IHDWXUH URRIV LQ D FRPSOLPHQWDU\ ³%DUFHORQD 7HUUD &RWWD´
FRORU SURYLGLQJ DQ DSSHDOLQJ FRQWUDVW RI FRORU DQG WH[WXUH WKURXJKRXW WKH
GHYHORSPHQW )XUWKHUWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOOIHDWXUHFRORUVWKDWQRW RQO\EOHQG ZHOO
ZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJQDWXUDOGHVHUWODQGVFDSHEXWDUHDOVRKLJKO\FRPSDWLEOHZLWK
WKH H[LVWLQJ UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQWV WR WKH LPPHGLDWH HDVW DQG VRXWK RI WKH
3URSHUW\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ SHULPHWHU ZDOOV ZLOO EH FRQVWUXFWHG RI VSOLWIDFHG &08
EORFNZLWKVXSSRUWFROXPQVDQGFDSVWRQHRIDFRPSOLPHQWDU\PDWHULDO
Page 485
F 'ULYHWKUX IDFLOLWLHV VKDOO EH RULHQWHG VR WKDW GULYHWKUX ZLQGRZV DUH QRW GLUHFWO\
YLVLEOHIURPDGMDFHQWSXEOLFVWUHHWV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH
SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW EXW ZLOO EH DGGUHVV LQ WKH IXWXUH FRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJSRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
G /DQGVFDSLQJDUFDGHVRURYHUKDQJVZKLFKSURYLGHVKDGHGZDONZD\VVKDOOEHXWLOL]HG
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ :KLOH WKLV 6WLSXODWLRQ LV JHQHUDOO\ PRUH
DSSOLFDEOH WR D FRPPHUFLDO GHYHORSPHQW DV ZDV RULJLQDOO\ FRQWHPSODWHG IRU WKLV
3URSHUW\ WKH SURSRVHG &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WKURXJK WKH
GHYHORSPHQW LQFOXGLQJ D ODUJH FHQWUDOO\ ORFDWHG SDUN IRU WKH HQMR\PHQW RI DOO
UHVLGHQWV$VGHSLFWHGRQWKH/DQGVFDSH3ODQVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW&7UHHV
DQG VKUXEV DUH ZHOO GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH ERWK H\H
DSSHDOLQJ FRPPRQ DUHDV VKDGH DGMDFHQW WR YHKLFXODU SDUNLQJ DUHDV DV ZHOO DV
VKDGHDORQJWKHSDWKVFRQQHFWLQJWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWV
H 7KDW SDUNLQJ DUHDV VKDOO EH GHVLJQHG ZLWK ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WR EUHDN XS WKH ODUJH
H[SDQVHRISDUNLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH &RPPXQLW\ SDUNLQJ DUHDV DV
LOOXVWUDWHGRQWKHDWWDFKHG6LWH3ODQ ([KLELW% DQG/DQGVFDSH3ODQV ([KLELW&
DUH GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH HDV\ DFFHVV WR WKH UHVLGHQWV
EHWZHHQWKHOLYLQJXQLWVWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV$VGHVLJQHG
WKH &RPPXQLW\ GRHV QRW SURYLGH DQ\ ODUJH H[SDQVLYH SDUNLQJ ILHOGV EXW UDWKHU
VPDOOHUDUHDVRIFDUSRUWFRYHUHGSDUNLQJSULYDWHJDUDJHVDQGRWKHUSDUNLQJDUHDV
WR VHUYLFH WKH QHHGV RI WKH UHVLGHQWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ ODQGVFDSLQJ KDV EHHQ ORFDWHG
DGMDFHQWWRSDUNLQJDUHDVWRSURYLGHERWKVKDGHDQGYLVXDODSSHDOWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\
I 6SHFLDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ VKDOO EH JLYHQ WR VLWH GHVLJQ IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV DGHTXDWHO\
PLWLJDWH WKH LPSDFWV RI WKH SUR[LPLW\ WR ,QWHUVWDWH VXFK LQQRYDWLYH VLWH GHVLJQ
LQFUHDVHGVHWEDFNVVRXQGEDUULHUVDQGLQFUHDVHGODQGVFDSLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO &RPPXQLW\ KDV
EHHQORFDWHGLQWKHIDUHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJVR
DV WR SURYLGH WKH PD[LPXP GLVWDQFH EXIIHU EHWZHHQ WKH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQFHV DQG
,QWHUVWDWH $V LOOXVWUDWHG RQ WKH 6LWH 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW % WKH
GLVWDQFHIURPWKHFORVHVWSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHWRWKH,QWHUVWDWHLVLQH[FHVVRI
IHHW$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\LVVHSDUDWHGIURPWKH,QWHUVWDWHE\WKH
ZHVWHUQSHULPHWHUZDOORIWKH&RPPXQLW\DQDSSUR[LPDWHO\IRRWZLGHGUDLQDJH
FKDQQHODQGDODUJHWUDFWRIODQGZKLFKPD\EHGHYHORSHGLQWKHIXWXUHZLWKXVHV
DOORZHG XQGHU WKH 5H]RQLQJ 7KH QDWXUDO DQG PDQPDGH EXIIHUV DORQJ ZLWK D
VXEVWDQWLDOVHSDUDWLRQGLVWDQFHZLOOSURYLGHPRUHWKDQDGHTXDWHEXIIHULQJRIQRLVH
DQGRWKHULPSDFWVJHQHUDWHGIURP,QWHUVWDWH
Page 486
J $Q DUFKLWHFWXUDO SODQ VKDOO EH DSSURYHG ZLWK WKH HOHYDWLRQV 7KH DUFKLWHFWXUDO SODQ
VKDOO FRQYH\ D VHQVH RI FRQWLQXLW\ WKURXJKRXW WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DW D PLQLPXP
LQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
L 1DWXUDO DFFHQW PDWHULDOV VXFK DV EULFN VWRQH RU WLOH IRU EXLOGLQJV DQG
VLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $VVKRZQRQWKHDWWDFKHG0DWHULDOV
DQG &RORU 3ODQ ([KLELW ( DQG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW ' WKH
SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOV FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOOV DQG WLOH
URRIV'HVHUWWRQHFRORUVDUHSURYLGHGWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
DFFHQW FRORUV EHLQJ XVHG RQ WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLW GRRUV DQG ZLQGRZ
FRUQLFHVIRUDSSHDO
LL $UFKLWHFWXUDO GHWDLOLQJ VXFK DV UHFHVVHV SRS RXWV VKDGH ZDOOV SDUDSHWV
DUWLVWLFLQVHWVRUSLODVWHUV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV DV
VKRZQ RQ WKH DWWDFKHG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW & SURYLGH IRU
UHFHVVHG HQWULHVZLQGRZFRUQLFHVDQGURRIOLQHDFFHQWV WR HQKDQFHWKH
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\
LLL 6WUHHW DSSXUWHQDQFHV VXFK DV EHQFKHV VHDWZDOOV UDPDGDV VKDGH
VWUXFWXUHVWUDVKHQFORVXUHVOLJKWLQJDQGZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\IHDWXUHVD
ZHOOGHVLJQHG VWUHHWVFDSH DORQJ WKH ORRS URDG SURYLGLQJ DFFHVV WR WKH
HQWLUH &RPPXQLW\ /RFDWHG DORQJ WKLV SULYDWH VWUHHW LV DPSOH SDUNLQJ
ERWKFRYHUHGDQGRSHQIRUWKHXVHDQGEHQHILWRIWKHUHVLGHQWV7UDVK
HQFORVXUHVDUHGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IRUHDV\DFFHVVE\
WKH UHVLGHQWV DQG HDVH RI UHIXVH FROOHFWLRQ &RQQHFWLYH ZDONZD\V DQG
ODQGVFDSLQJ DUH SURYLGHG DORQJ WKH VWUHHW WR SURYLGH GLUHFW DQG HDV\
DFFHVV IRU WKH UHVLGHQWV IURP WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV WR WKH SDUNLQJ
IDFLOLWLHV DV ZHOO DV WKH FRPPXQLW\ DPHQLWLHV DQG SDUNV ORFDWHG
WKURXJKRXW WKHGHYHORSPHQW 6WUHHW OLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQW OLJKWVDUHDOVR
SURYLGHWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKHVDIHW\DQGDHVWKHWLFDSSHDO
WRWKHUHVLGHQWV
LY 'HWDLOVHFWLRQVIRUVFUHHQLQJDQGSHULPHWHUZDOOVDVZHOODVZDOOVLQWHULRU
WRWKHVLWH VDLGZDOOVVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGDQGILQLVKHGZLWKPDWHULDOVVLPLODU
WRWKRVHRIWKHEXLOGLQJV¶DUFKLWHFWXUDOGHWDLOLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ 'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV
LQFOXGHGDV ([KLELW )WKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOO SURYLGHIRUDSHULPHWHUZDOO
DORQJ WKH HQWLUH SHULPHWHU RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW 7KH SHULPHWHU ZDOO ZLOO
IHDWXUHVSOLWIDFHGEORFNPDVRQU\FRQVWUXFWLRQZLWKDUFKLWHFWXUDODFFHQWV
FRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKH%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQVWRSURYLGH
IRU DQ RYHUDOO FRQVLVWHQW DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKURXJKRXW
Page 487
WKH &RPPXQLW\ YLHZ IHQFLQJ ZLOO EH SURYLGHG ZLWK VXFK YLHZ IHQFLQJ
IHDWXULQJDFRQVLVWHQWDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQIRUWKHVXSSRUWLQJFROXPQV
7KDW D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VLJQ SODQ IRU WKH HQWLUH SURSHUW\ H[FOXGLQJ WKDW SRUWLRQ EHLQJ
GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG E\ WKH =RQLQJ $GPLQLVWUDWRU LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 6HFWLRQ RI WKH =RQLQJ 2UGLQDQFH SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQWILQDOVLWHSODQDSSURYDOIRUWKHILUVWSKDVHRIGHYHORSPHQW
5DWLRQDOHIRU0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH
3URSHUW\ LV EHLQJ SURFHVVHG DV D VHSDUDWH DQG GLVFUHWH UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW QRW
RWKHUZLVHFRQQHFWHGWRWKHODWHUGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO$WWKLVWLPHLW
LV XQFOHDU KRZ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH GHYHORSHG DQG VLJQDJH IRU DQ\ IXWXUH
GHYHORSPHQW XSRQ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH PRUH IXOO\ GHILQHG WKURXJK WKH
VXEVHTXHQWHQWLWOHPHQWDQGUHYLHZSURFHVVHV$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH6WLSXODWLRQUHJDUGLQJD
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQLV PRUHDSSURSULDWHO\UHODWHGWRWKHSUHYLRXVO\FRQWHPSODWHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHHQWLUHWUDFWDVDQLQWHJUDWHGFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLVQRW
WKHFXUUHQWGHYHORSPHQWSODQ7KHUHIRUHWKH$SSOLFDQWUHTXHVWWKDWWKLV6WLSXODWLRQEH
PRGLILHG WR H[FOXGH WKH 3URSHUW\ EHLQJ GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV IURP DQ\
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQ
7KDW IHHW RI ULJKWRIZD\ VKDOO EH GHGLFDWHG IRU WKH VRXWK KDOI RI 7HUHVD /DQH RU DV
RWKHUZLVHDSSURYHGE\WKH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSDUWPHQW
7KDW DGGLWLRQDO ULJKWRIZD\ VKDOO EH GHGLFDWHG IRU WKH IXWXUH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH
IUHHZD\IURQWDJHURDGDVDSSURYHGE\WKH6WUHHW7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQW
7KDWWKH'HYHORSHUVKDOOFRQVWUXFWDOOVWUHHWVZLWKLQDQGDGMDFHQWWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
SDYLQJFXUEJXWWHUVLGHZDONFXUEUDPSVVWUHHWOLJKWVPHGLDQLVODQGVODQGVFDSLQJDQG
RWKHU LQFLGHQWDOV DV SHU WKH SODQV DSSURYHG RU PRGLILHG E\ WKH 6WUHHW 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
'HSDUWPHQW
7KDW WKH DSSOLFDQW VKDOO VXEPLW DQ DUFKDHRORJLFDO VXUYH\ UHSRUW RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW DUH
IRU UHYLHZ DQG DSSURYDO E\ WKH &LW\ $UFKDHRORJLVW SULRU WR FOHDULQJ DQG JUXEELQJ
ODQGVFDSLQJ VDOYDJH DQGRU JUDGLQJ )XUWKHU DUFKDHRORJLFDO PRQLWRULQJ DQGRU WHVWLQJ
WUHQFKLQJ PD\EHQHFHVVDU\EDVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHVXUYH\
7KDW WKH IROORZLQJ SHUVRQV RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG DVVRFLDWLRQV VKDOO EH QRWLILHG E\ WKH
DSSOLFDQW DW OHDVW GD\V EHIRUH WKH PHHWLQJ RU KHDULQJ RI DQ\ 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQW SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ PHHWLQJV =RQLQJ $GMXVWPHQW KHDULQJV RU 3ODQQLQJ
+HDULQJ2IILFHUKHDULQJV
D 1HZ5LYHU'HVHUW+LOOV&RPPXQLW\$VVRFLDWLRQ,QF
(&DUHIUHH+LJKZD\
3KRHQL[$=
E 6KDUHHQ*RRGURDG
VFJRRGURDG#PVQFRP
Page 488
F 7HUU\0DUURQ
WPDUURQ#\DKRRFRP
( &RQFOXVLRQ
%DVHG XSRQ WKH SURSRVHG GHVLJQ DQG GHYHORSPHQW HOHPHQWV RI WKH &RPPXQLW\ WKH
XQLIRUP DQG FRPSDWLEOH DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH DQG QDWXUH RI WKH SURSRVHG PXOWLIDPLO\
GHYHORSPHQWXSRQWKH3URSHUW\WKH&RPPXQLW\KDVEHHQGHVLJQHGLQVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHOHYDQW
6WLSXODWLRQVVHWIRUWKLQWKH5H]RQLQJ
Page 489
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
Page 490
Page 491
Page 492
Page 493
Page 494
Page 495
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
([KLELW%±6LWH3ODQ
Page 499
Page 500
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
Page 501
$
$
+(50$11 '(6,*1 *5283
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
:2/)5'
68,7(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$=/,&
Page 502
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+
)$;
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
Page 503
Page 504
$552<21257(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
9RQ.DUPDQ$YHQXH6XLWH
,UYLQH&$
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 505
/()7 )5217
Page 506
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 507
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
:+ :'
.,7&+(1 3$175<
[
325&+
&2$76
6725$*(
*5($7
5220 %('5220
[ [
%$7+
Page 508
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 509
/()7 )5217
Page 510
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 511
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
325&+
:+ :'
%$7+
.,7&+(1
[
:,&
&2$76
6725$*(
)/(; *5($7
[
%('5220 [
[
Page 512
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 513
/()7 )5217
Page 514
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 515
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
325&+
:,&
.,7&+(1 :'
[ 6(&1'5<
%$7+
:+
35,0$5<
%$7+
&2$76
6725$*(
*5($7
35,0$5< 5220 6(&21'$5<
%('5220 [ %('5220
[ [
Page 516
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
Page 517
3/ $1 3/ $ 1 3 / $1
6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '< 6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '< 6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '<
6 : 6 1 2: % 281 ' 6 : 6 1 2:%2 8 1 ' 6 : 6 1 2: % 28 1 '
$ & & ( 1 7 & $ 5 3 2 57 6 * $ 5 $ * ( ' 2 2 5 6 $ & & ( 1 7 & $ 5 3 2 57 6 * $ 5 $ * ( ' 2 2 5 6 $&&( 1 7 &$532576 * $5$* ( ' 2256
6 : , 1 7 ( / / (& 7 8 $ / * 5 $< 6 : , 1 7 (/ / (&7 8 $/ * 5 $< 6 : , 1 7( //( &78 $/* 5$<
Page 518
) 52 1 7 ' 22 56 )5 2 1 7 ' 2 2 5 6 )521 7' 2256
6 : 5 $9 ( 5( ' 6 : * 2 / ' &5 (6 7 6 : * ( 25* , $1 % $<
52 2) , 1 * 5 2 2 ), 1 * 522), 1 *
%2 5$ / %$ 5 & (/ 2 1 $ 7 ( 55 $ & 27 7$ ) / $ 6+ ( ' %2 5 $/ %$5 &(/ 2 1 $7 (5 5 $&27 7$)/ $6 + (' % 25$/ % $5&( /21 $7( 55$&277$)/$6 + ( '
)DPLO\'HYHORSPHQW
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )UHG:DULQJ'ULYH
3DOP'HVHUW&$ $5,6($552<21257( -$18$5<
NWJ\FRP 3+2(1,;$= &2/25 0 $7 ( 5 , $ / % 2 $ 5 '
ZZZIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWKRPHVFRP
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
Page 519
+(50$11 '(6,*1 *5283
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
:2/)5'
68,7(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$=/,&
Page 520
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+
)$;
(;+,%,7&
Page 521
N HUDSON TL
W ARROYO NORTE DR
W LAPENA DR
N RALEIGH WAY
W ARACELY DR
YON AC
HE M S B NO HE M NB NO
N BLACK CA
N BLACK CAN N I17@ANT N I17@ANT N HUDSON TRL
Page 522
NYON HW Y W BINGHAM DR
W OLD WEST TL
E NLY WAY
HE AV
N
W PLYM OUTH DR Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
(;+,%,7'
Page 523
C-2* N HUDSON TL
W ARROYO NORTE DR
W LAPENA DR
N RALEIGH WAY
C-2*
W ARACELY DR
YON AC
HE M S B NO HE M NB NO
N BLACK CA
N BLACK CAN N I17@ANT N I17@ANT N HUDSON TRL
Page 524
NYON HW Y W BINGHAM DR
W OLD WEST TL
E NLY WAY
HE AV
N
C-2 W PLYM OUTH DR
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
(;+,%,7(
Page 525
Page 526
Page 527
Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
(;+,%,7)
Page 534
TERESA LN
MARICOPA MARICOPA
YO
BLACK CAN
N AC
$
c
"
! (39TH AVE)
COUNTY
OLD WEST TRAIL
Phoenix City Limits
APP
S-1
Z-160-05
Z-48-07
NORTH
400 200 0 400 Feet IV
RD
!
"
c
$!!
ER
R WY I-17
W
NE PK
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT PE
AK DESERT HILLS DR
NEW VILLAGE VILLAGE PYRA
MID
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: C-1, (20.93 ac) Pending
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
04-19-2007 R1-8 , (25.73 ac) Pending
Z-48-07 06-11-2007
REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
C-2, (46.66 ac)
46.66 Acres Q70-19 U6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-1 / R1-8 303 / 103 364 / 133
C-2 676 812
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 535_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2007\Z-48-07.mxd) 6/11/2007
(N:\IS
(;+,%,7*
Page 536
Page 537
(;+,%,7+
Page 538
Page 539
A R R O Y O N O R T E
Architecture + Planning
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 540
/()7 )5217
Page 541
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 542
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
34'-0"
27'-9" 6'-3"
WH W/D
KITCHEN PANTRY 8'-2"
13'-4" x 8'-4"
PORCH
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-0"
GREAT
14'-10"
ROOM BEDROOM
13'-1" x 14'-1" 11'-0" x 11'-11"
BATH
Page 543
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 544
/()7 )5217
Page 545
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 546
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
35'-0"
14'-11" 9'-5" 10'-8"
PORCH
WH W/D
BATH
KITCHEN 10'-3"
12'-6" x 10'-1"
W.I.C.
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-0"
FLEX GREAT
9'-4" x 11'-0"
ROOM
BEDROOM 13'-7" x 12'-4" 12'-9"
10'-10" x 11'-2"
Page 547
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 548
/()7 )5217
Page 549
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 550
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
40'-0"
24'-7" 15'-5"
PORCH
W.I.C.
KITCHEN W/D
12'-4" x 10'-1" SECNDRY
BATH
WH
PRIMARY
BATH
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-10"
GREAT
PRIMARY ROOM SECONDARY
BEDROOM 13'-6" x 12'-4" BEDROOM
12'-10" x 12'-4" 9'-11" x 10'-0"
Page 551
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
(;+,%,7,
Page 552
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 9, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair Samantha Keating
Will Holton Julianna Pierre
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. with a quorum of five members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the February 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for approval of conceptual site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1; modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan; and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on March 17, 2021.
10 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Samantha Keating provided information regarding the location of the site and
the surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no finalized plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170 unit, single-
family rental community with open space areas, gated rear yards, and main
access at the northwest corner. She clarified that the proposed use is permitted
Page 553
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
in the C-2 zoning district.
Samantha Keating clarified that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan. She stated that the comprehensive sign plan was
originally intended for the entire area of Rezoning Case No. z-48-07, but the
applicant is requesting the stipulation be modified to exclude the site being
developed for residential uses.
Samantha Keating added that there is a request of technical corrections for
Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that the current PHO request was not a rezoning request. He added that
the current zoning permits the proposed use and was only going through the
PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification. He added
that the proposed use in 2007 was primarily commercial retail, but development
never occurred.
David Cisiewski stated that the proposed development consists of 170 detached
residences in a gated community with private backyards and various amenities.
He noted that uncovered, covered, and garage parking is dispersed throughout
the site for both residents and guests. He added that care was taken to provide
buffers from the frontage roads and nearby Interstate-17. He noted that in
addition to a wall along the perimeter of the wall, there is a 40-foot powerline
easement of open desert between the proposed development and the existing
homes to the east. He added that elevations have architectural consistency in
building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. He stated that
the primary finishing materials would be desert materials with natural accents.
Judy Lorch asked what the average square footage of the units would be.
David Cisiewski stated that the unit size would vary from 650 to 900 square
feet, depending on the floor plan.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification regarding the orientation of units on the east
side of the proposed development. David Cisiewski clarified that the homes on
the east side of the development would be oriented with their rear yards adjacent
to the powerline easement.
Loyd Nygaard asked about the estimated rent of the units. David Cisiewski
stated that the estimated rent would be between $1,400 to $1,800. Loyd
Nygaard also asked for clarification regarding jurisdiction of the proposed
development and the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. David Cisiewski stated
that the proposed development is subject to Phoenix jurisdiction and the adjacent
subdivision is part of Maricopa County.
Page 554
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Will Holton asked about maneuvering through the site, specifically the
southernmost portion of the development. He expressed concern regarding the
ability of emergency vehicles to navigate through the site. David Cisiewski
stated that the north-south roadways throughout the development are 35 feet in
width, except at the southernmost portion where the roadways are 25 feet in
width. He stated that he worked with the City’s Development division to
determine that the development meets the necessary turning radii for emergency
vehicles.
Loyd Nygaard asked if the developer would be able to monitor whether
residents were using county amenities. David Cisiewski stated that there would
be no way monitor those uses, but the intent is for residents to use the
development’s on-site amenities.
Ozzie Virgil asked if a traffic study was done and how the development would
add traffic to the area. David Cisiewski stated that the Street Transportation
Department and Traffic Engineering reviewers did not request a Traffic Study to
be completed. Will Holton asked why a Traffic Study was not required.
Samantha Keating stated that developments have to meet a certain threshold
regarding the number of units and trips to determine whether a Traffic Study is
necessary. She added that this particular development did not meet that
threshold and thus a Traffic Study was not requested. Ozzie Virgil emphasized
that traffic will be an issue and should have been addressed by the City. He
recommended that the developer consider increasing lot size and decreasing
density. David Cisiewski stated that he will continue to work with the Street
Transportation Department regarding traffic concerns.
Loyd Nygarrd asked about fire, police, and utilities. David Cisiewski stated that
he did not receive comments from Phoenix Police and Fire reviewers had no
comments. He added that EPCOR will provide water and sewer to the
development.
Will Holton asked about water flow and flooding. David Cisiewski stated that
there is not a final drainage study, but water does flow north to south and there is
a drainage channel along the western boundary of the development and will be
retained as part of the development.
Andrew Brand, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and congestion. He stated that
having a proposed gated community adjacent to the existing ungated community
will encourage the new residents to use adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. He
suggested that the developer incorporate fewer rentals and larger park spaces
and remove the gated aspect of the community. He also expressed concerns
about not receiving notifications.
Tyler Estes, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He expressed concerns regarding
Page 555
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
density and use of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision amenities. He also
noted that the developer is not looking out for residents considering EPCOR’s
poor reputation handling water services.
Robert Careway, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding density of the site. He emphasized that the
development is too far north to receive fire and police services from the City of
Phoenix. He stated that those services will have to come from Maricopa County.
Ryan Gregor, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that the development is too dense for the area. He stated that this type of
development will devalue homes. He emphasized that fire services will end up
coming from Maricopa County.
Sean Gates, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. He added that since the
development does not have adequate park space, they will end up using the
amenities of the adjacent subdivision.
Tod Flaming, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He stated that the infrastructure in
the area needs to be expanded to accommodate new development. He added
that the proposed development does not have adequate parking to
accommodate the number of residents.
Chad Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns regarding
increased traffic and the site’s poor parking design. He also stated that he did
not receive notifications and City’s sign was not visible on the property.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was informed
the only type of development that would be built behind his home was
commercial retail. He expressed concerns about traffic and density.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was the
Executive Director of the Anthem Community Council. He encouraged the City
to communicate with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) regarding traffic. He stated that the design and density of the
community is a concern. He suggested that the developer rethink the proposal
and return to the Village Planning Committee at a later time.
Kiran Patel, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns about
density. He was assured that the area would remain an open, desert-like
community and the proposed use does not complement the existing adjacent
communities.
David Cisiewski emphasized that this is not a rezoning case and the use is
permitted in the zoning district and may have less impact than high intensity
Page 556
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
retail. He noted that the site would not be a traditional single-family development
with a target demographic of millennials and “empty nesters”. He stated that the
development is providing more open space than is required by the Zoning
Ordinance and the individual rear yards for each property should be considered.
He added that the development would be professionally managed with onsite
maintenance and leasing. He also clarified that the development is proposing
more parking than would be required by the Ordinance.
Will Holton stated that the proposed development does not fit the long range
plans for Rio Vista. He stated that developers should want to preserve the desert
look. He expressed concerns about the proposed homes being in such close
proximity. He stated that if a fire started, it would easily spread throughout the
development.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked who maintained the roads adjacent to
the subject site. Samantha Keating clarified that the road directly to the north of
the property was under the City of Phoenix’s jurisdiction and as you move east or
west the roads are under Maricopa County’s jurisdiction.
Ozzie Virgil stated that the developer should be required to complete a Traffic
Study. David Cisiewski stated that he will work with City Staff, MCDOT, and
Arizona Department of Transit regarding traffic issues. Ozzie Virgil also
suggested a continuance to continue working with the neighbors. David
Cisiewski stated that he was amenable to a continuance to resolve traffic issues
and address concerns of the community.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to continue the request to the April 13,
2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded
by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
4. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
5. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
6. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Will Holton asked staff to look into the new hospital being north of Anthem and
whether it would impact the Rio Vista Village.
Page 557
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff to provide updates regarding
PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 and any future community meetings that the applicant
plans to host.
7. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Page 558
(;+,%,7-
Page 559
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 13, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair Samantha Keating
Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair Julianna Pierre
Will Holton
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. with a quorum of six members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the March 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Steve Scharboneau.
VOTE: 6-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Scharboneau, Holton,
Lorch, Nygaard, and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1, modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan, and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
2 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no specific plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170-unit, single-
Page 560
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
family rental community with multiple open space areas, gated rear yards, and
main access at the northwest corner.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan, and that there is a request of technical corrections
for Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that this case is not a request to change the zoning of the property. He
added that the current request was focused on bringing forward a site plan and
conceptual elevations for review and approval. He reiterated that the proposed
development is a permitted use in the zoning district and complies with the
Ordinance’s development standards. He stated that the proposed development
will consist of 170 detached residences in a gated community with private rear
yards and various amenities.
David Cisiewski stated that after the continuance, a neighborhood meeting was
held on March 31, 2021. He gave a general summary of the community
comments and concerns, including the name of the development, density,
residential design and colors, compatibility, parking, parks and amenities, traffic,
and site access.
David Cisiewski stated that in response to the community, the name of the
development was changed from Arise Arroyo Norte to Arise North Phoenix. He
noted that the provided density of the development is 12.2 dwelling units per
acre, which is much less than the density permitted in C-2. He stated the
proposed development was residential in design with one to two-bedroom units
and the color scheme was revised to a desert color palette, making it more
compatible with the area. He added that the development would have ample
amenities, parking and open space.
David Cisiewski clarified that neither the City nor Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) required the developer to complete a Traffic Impact
Study. He stated that based on the concerns of the community, CivTech, a
consulting firm specializing in traffic engineering and design, was hired to
complete a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). He stated that the TIS concluded that
the proposed development would generate almost 4,000 fewer daily trips than a
commercial shopping center and that the projected traffic volume from the
development would not trigger road widenings or signalization of intersections.
David Cisiewski explained how the revised elevations consist of natural desert
materials which are appropriate for the natural desert context. He explained how
the landscaping, trails, and design allows for discrete, clustered parking areas.
He added that care was taken to provide buffers from the frontage roads and
nearby Interstate-17 (I-17). He added that elevations have architectural
consistency in building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
Page 561
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
David Cisiewski also stated that the developer has taken the Rio Vista Design
Guidelines into account. He stated that the development meets specific
guidelines, citing preservation of existing washes, minimum twenty percent open
space and five percent active open space, desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, and decorative
walls.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification between the community open space
and total open space. David Cisiewski stated that the community open space is
inclusive of the central park, dog park, and other parks interspersed in the
development, which is approximately 7.5% of the site. However, when inclusive
of each unit’s backyard, the total open space accounts for about 50% of the site.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification regarding the two points of access
to the property. David Cisiewski stated that there is the primary access point at
the northwest corner will be for residents and the secondary access point at the
northeast corned will be gated with access for emergency service vehicles.
Steven Scharboneau stated that Stipulation 1 indicated that the architecture
should include natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage. He asked if there was any intention to add brick or stone to the
elevations. David Cisiewski stated that there are tile roofs, tile accents over the
door, and stucco exteriors. He added that brick would be incorporated into the
entry features. He stated that the intention was not to have stone or brick on
each individual unit. Vincent Barbato, owner of Family Development, added
that the elevations have a Mediterranean design with points of articulation, such
as flared treatments, window brows, recessed windows, and recessed accents.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the applicant’s request
concerning Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
David Cisiewski stated that the comprehensive sign plan was intended for a
larger commercial center with multiple pads and tenants with individual signs. He
stated that the proposed rental community would only have a small sign at the
entrance and a comprehensive sign plan would not be necessary. Steven
Scharboneau asked if there were any sign plans, and if not, could the applicant
provide a description of the intended signage. Vincent Barbato stated that the
main entry would have a professionally designed entry monument sign with the
development name. He clarified that this would be the only seen by the public,
outside of the community. Steven Scharboneau asked about the height of the
entry sign. Vincent Barbato stated that the sign would be built into a six-foot
wall, so it would be less than six feet in height.
Will Holton asked about the drainage on the site. He asked if the water would
drain away from the existing homes. Dave Cisiewski stated that the site would
retain on site water and any water draining away from the site would move north
to south in a southwesterly direction, away from the existing homes.
Page 562
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Will Holton asked if the development would have a community mailbox area or
individual mailboxes. Vincent Barbato stated that the mailboxes would be
located in leasing office building, along with a package room.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification about utilities. He asked if the units would be
set up in a way where units could be individually sold. David Cisiewski stated
that there would be central water and utility lines that would serve the entire
community, which would not allow for them to be individually metered. Vincent
Barbato added that homes have not been individually platted and would not be
sold individually.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the developer considered decreasing the number of units,
since traffic has been a major concern with the community. David Cisiewski
stated that they originally proposed more units, but eventually decreased the unit
number to 170, which allows for a good combination of density, parking, and
open space. Vincent Barbato stated that the development is proposing much
lower density than is permitted in the C-2 zoning district. He added that their use
will provide the lowest amount of traffic, but the 170 units is necessary for a
viable community. Ozzie Virgil stated that they are trying to focus on providing a
balance in the Village between larger lots and homes with higher density
projects.
Will Holton asked for clarification of a “viable community”. David Cisiewski
explained that the intent was to convey that the 170 units, open space provided,
and dispersed parking will make the development a positive living environment
for the tenants.
Loyd Nygaard asked for clarification regarding the PHO Hearing. David
Cisiewski stated that they filed a written request for a continuance to the April
21, 2021 PHO hearing. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was pleased that the
applicant took the time to address the comments and concerns of the Village
Planning Committee (VPC), but still had concerns about traffic, specifically at the
intersection of Anthem Way and Navigation Way and the intersection of the I-17
frontage road and Arroyo Norte Drive. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, stated that
the proposed development will put out, at the most, approximately 1.5 vehicles
per minute in the peak hours. She stated that there would be no significant
increase in the level of service of delay for existing residents using the I-17
frontage road and Navigation Way. She clarified that this was determined by
looking at trip generation for the proposed development. Ozzie Virgil asked for
clarification about the traffic generation calculation. Dawn Cartier explained that
the calculation was determined by looking at the number of dwelling units and the
Trip Generation Manual produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She stated that the manual is based on thousands of studies and gives average
anticipated traffic for different uses. She added that the calculation determined
that cars from the development would have a minimal affect on average delay
times. Ozzie Virgil asked if the traffic study was completed on a weekday or
Page 563
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
weekend. Dawn Cartier stated that the traffic counts were performed on a
weekday during 7-10 AM and 4-6 PM. She added that the numbers were
adjusted upward to account for COVID-19.
Loyd Nygaard asked about northbound traffic and the closest exit onto I-17
when moving in that direction. Dawn Cartier clarified that the closet exit heading
north is two miles away. Loyd Nygaard asked if there was any access to the
east. David Cisiewski stated that the road dead ends to the east where new
development is taking place. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was concerned about
the difficulty for emergency vehicles to reach the area. Dawn Cartier stated that
she spoke with ADOT and traffic would have to be controlled in an emergency
situation with some cars being rerouted.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the emergency only ingress
and egress at the northeast corner of the proposed development. David
Cisiewski stated that this is secondary access point specifically for emergency
service vehicles.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to modify the development
regarding color of units and add language to marketing materials clarifying that
Anthem is a private community. He stated that he still had concerns about traffic
in the area. He stated that the City of Phoenix needs to be aware of the traffic
burden that they will be placing on adjacent Maricopa County intersections and
roads. He added that a school is being built in the area, which will also increase
traffic.
Terry Mullarkey stated that he has spoken with ADOT and the City of Phoenix
regarding improvements to the frontage roads on the west side of I-17. He
stated that this is not a viable frontage road and needs to be improved if intended
for emergency vehicle use. He added that the frontage road between Desert
Hills and Anthem Way needs to have a third lane added.
Andrew Brand, a resident of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision, asked for
clarification about the size of each individual unit’s back yard space. David
Cisiewski stated that the average size would be eight to ten feet in depth by the
width of the house, which will vary from thirty to forty feet. Andrew Brand asked
for the location of the closest City funded park. David Cisiewski stated that he
was uncertain of the closest park. Andrew Brand stated that that amenity space
in the proposed development would not be enough to for residents to perform
typical activities done in larger parks. He added that he also had concerns about
safety, traffic, and depreciation in value of adjacent homes.
Andrew Brand stated that the development would create a financial hardship for
adjacent residents. He added that not only would existing residents have to
informally police the community, but also would need to invest money into having
gates installed and roadways improved. He added that there is no reciprocation
Page 564
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
with a residential development, as there would be with a commercial enterprise.
He stated that the existing residents will gain nothing from this proposed
development.
Andrew Brand stated that he is concerned about the impact that the proposed
development will have on the adjacent community. He stated that they are
disappointed to see such high density. He added that he had concerns about the
layout of the development’s units.
David Cisewski stated that the development would be buffered from the
adjacent community by a 38-foot power line easement and that the layout of units
was dictated by the shape and odd cut outs of the property.
Vincent Barbato stated that the typical clientele will older, responsible
individuals who are renters by choice and do not want to purchase a home. He
added that renters will most likely be looking for a single-family home experience
without the hassle of having to purchase a single-family home. He stated that
the proposed development did not have amenities such as playgrounds or
basketball courts because these were not requested during focus groups and
studies. He stated that a luxury rental community would help increase the value
of adjacent homes because they bring a diverse product to the area.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to
hear and incorporate community comments, but still had concerns that the
development is not in line with the Rio Vista Village’s Development Guidelines.
He stated that the development, technically, has two points of ingress and
egress, but, functionally, only one since the other is specifically for emergency
service vehicles. He added that the development’s elevations do not show
appropriate accent materials per Stipulation 1.g.i, regarding natural accent
materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings and signage. He added that
the development does not illustrate preservation of the desert landscape. He
stated that he also had concerns regarding traffic and emergency services. He
added that it was also important to take into account the social impact that the
proposed development would have on the existing community.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was only willing to consider a motion if there was
an addendum stating that the City and Maricopa County would work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way.
Will Holton agreed with Loyd Nygaard’s statements. He stated that there are
existing traffic problems and the new development would only exasperate those
issues. He stated that the City needs to work with Maricopa County to make it
safer for residents and allow for better emergency service access. He added that
there is not enough space between the proposed units and the development
could easily become a fire hazard.
Page 565
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Ozzie Virgil stated this type of development is not what was anticipated for this
area of the Village. He stated that commercial development was expected. He
added that he is not against development, but is more amenable to development
that is comparable to existing single-family subdivisions.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he appreciated that the
developer was responsive to the community. He stated that there are some
difficulties with the Village Guidelines, because they are not enforceable in the
same way a regulatory overlay is enforceable. However, it is important for the
developer to be proactive and work with the Village regarding development. He
added that is important for the Committee to bring ADOT, the City, and Maricopa
County together to address the community’s concerns regarding traffic. He
agreed with Loyd Nygaard and stated that adding an addendum regarding traffic
would be important if the case were to move forward.
Will Holton stated that he was disappointed with the proposed development
because the community’s issues had not been appropriately addressed. He
added that it is important that the Committee be proactive when items have
unresolved issues.
Committee members asked for clarification regarding the recommendation
process. Samantha Keating explained that the Committee is a recommending
body and can choose to recommend approval, denial, or approval with
modifications.
Will Holton stated that it would be beneficial to get feedback from traffic
engineers and emergency services prior to moving forward with the item.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 with an
additional stipulation requiring that the City and Maricopa County work together
for improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage
road and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit
232, and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
Samantha Keating clarified that it is difficult to tie a particular development to
larger traffic improvement. She advised that any traffic concerns could be
included as additional direction to City staff.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. He
requested that staff ensure the City and Maricopa County work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The motion
was seconded by Judy Lorch.
Page 566
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Lorch, Nygaard, and
Virgil in favor and Committee Members Scharboneau and Holton in opposition.
4. PHO-1-21—Z-47-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 775 feet north of the northwest corner of I-17 and Old West Trail.
Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 and modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
1 person in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She indicated that the original commercial development
proposed in 2007 was intended to provide a buffer between the interstate and
residential development to the west. She noted that there were no specific plans
in 2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 191-unit, gated,
casita-style residential community. She noted that primary access would be from
43rd Avenue and secondary access from the Iinterstate-17 (I-17) frontage road.
She added that the development will provide three main styles for their
elevations.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan.
Brennan Ray, representing NexMetro Communities, stated that the current
zoning permits the proposed multifamily use and that the project was going
through the PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification.
He added that he was aware of community concerns and held a neighborhood
meeting on March 31, 2021 to discuss the project. He added that during the
meeting there were general questions about the development, traffic, and the
intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray provided a summary about the type of residents that the
community will attract. He stated that most will be older, single residents who
previously lived in a single-family home. He added that, on average, there would
be two children per ten households. He clarified that this information was based
on the almost 2,000 units that NexMetro has constructed in Maricopa County.
Brennan Ray stated that there would be a courtyard layout with one, two, and
three-bedroom units. He added that units would have private, landscaped
backyards. He stated that there would be a total of 191 residences with a central
amenity area, primary access from 43rd Avenue, and secondary access from the
Page 567
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
I-17 frontage road. He stated that the development would have three
architectural styles, which are all consistent with Stipulation 1, regarding review
and approval of a site plan and elevations. He added that the development has
taken the Rio Vista Design Guidelines into account. He stated that the
development meets specific guidelines, citing desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, decorative walls,
four-sided architecture, varying rooflines, and multiple floorplans with various
façades. He stated that there are various amenities throughout the development
that are connected by sidewalks. He stated that information will be provided to
residents notifying them that Anthem facilities are private.
Brennan Ray stated that the right-of-way at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way has
been acquired and improvements are planned to begin in May or June of 2021.
He added that the development will have little to no impact on the level of service
at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray discussed the emergency response times for both police and fire
services. He stated that a mutual aid policy exists between the Maricopa County
Sheriff Office and the Phoenix Police Department and both provide emergency
assistance to each other along the jurisdictional borders. He added that primary
emergency response to fires in the north Phoenix area is provided by the Daisy
Mountain Fire District based on an automatic aid agreement that includes twenty
different fire departments and districts valley wide. He stated that the Phoenix
Fire Department anticipates a new fire station in the 43rd Avenue and Circle
Mountain Road area. He added that the proposed development will generate
approximately $1.5 million in impact fees, some of which will be distributed to fire,
police, and parks.
Judy Lorch stated that the development will have some children. She asked
where the children would be attending school. Brennan Ray stated that there
have been no discussions with the school district, and he was unsure of which
school children would attend. Judy Lorch asked about access via the I-17
frontage road. Brennan Ray stated that northbound travel is permitted from
Anthem Way to Old West Trail and north and southbound travel is permitted
north of Old West Trail.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was thankful that the developer researched and
attempted to meet the desires of the Village. He added that if he were to vote on
this item, he would require additional direction discussing the need for
improvements for the frontage road west of I-17, the intersection of Anthem Way
and 41st Drive, and Old West Trail. He clarified that all these locations create
tremendous traffic hazards. Brennan Ray stated that the site did go through the
development preapplication process and did not receive any major comments
related to traffic. He reiterated that the City is intending to make improvements to
43rd Avenue beginning in May or June 2021. He added that the proposed
residential use would also generate less traffic than a commercial use.
Page 568
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Will Holton asked for clarification regarding the name of the development.
Brennan Ray clarified that the name was Avilla Vista Norte and Avilla was
intended to be short for “a village”.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the property was under escrow. Brennan Ray stated that
NexMetro is in escrow to acquire the property. Ozzie Virgil asked if NexMetro
intended to acquire other properties in the area. He added that the Village was
trying to create a balance between high and low density in the area. Brennan
Ray stated that NexMetro did not intend to purchase other properties or build
similar projects in the area.
Steven Scharboneau asked if both points of ingress and egress would be
accessible to residents at all times. Brennan Ray stated that both entrances
would be gated, but accessible to residents twenty-four hours, seven days a
week.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that Anthem is opposed to the development. He added that he was disappointed
that the multifamily development does not comply with the Rio Vista Village
Design Guidelines. He stated that from experience he knew that the impact fees
would not be seen north of Happy Valley Road. He added that the I-17 frontage
road does not go north or south, but dead ends in both directions. He clarified
that traffic exiting the proposed development would need to exit 43rd Avenue.
He also expressed concerns regarding 43rd Avenue and stated that the planned
improvements would not be adequate. He added that emergency access would
also be an issue unless the I-17 frontage road was improved.
Brennan Ray stated that the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines do not have
specific parameters for hybrid developments that fall between traditional
multifamily and traditional single-family. He stated that the guidelines were
reviewed, and the developer attempted to satisfy those design guidelines to the
best of their ability. He reiterated that this item is a PHO request and that the
development meets the applicable stipulations.
Brennan Ray stated that the City did not ask the developer to contribute to the
widening or improvements at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way because the funding
was met through a prior case. He added that 43rd Avenue did have an
appropriate level of service, despite perhaps having a few seconds added to wait
times. He stated that in an emergency the I-17 frontage road can allow for two-
way traffic per ADOT mandate. He added that local law enforcement would
control the two-way traffic.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he understands that this is not a rezoning
case, but the density is not what the community wants to see in this area. He
added that it would be important for the Village Planning Committee to create
guidelines for developments that fall between traditional multifamily and
Page 569
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
traditional single-family. Will Holton agreed with Steven Scharboneau. He
added that the development is too dense.
Ozzie Virgil stated that this type of development is not what was envisioned for
the area. He reiterated that there needs to be a balance of high and low density
in the Village. He stated that the development will exacerbate existing issues in
the area. He clarified that he is not anti-development, but feels any proposed
development needs to be sensible.
Loyd Nygaard stated that while he had issues with the density, he believed that
this was a PHO case and should be voting on whether the proposed
development meets the appropriate stipulations. Chair Massimo
Sommacampagna clarified that this not a rezoning case or a land use issue. He
stated that they should determine whether the elevations and site plan conform
to the listed stipulations. He added that multifamily is permitted in the C-2 zoning
district. Steven Scharboneau stated that their recommendation is based on
community input and that recommendation will be provided to the PHO. Will
Holton stated the Village Planning Committee (VPC) is the voice of the
community and their comments and concerns should be considered.
MOTION: Judy Lorch made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-47-07. The
motion was seconded by Chair Massimo Sommacampagna.
VOTE: 2-4 with Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in favor and
Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil in opposition.
This motion failed.
Will Holton asked for clarity on the semantics of the motion. Steven
Scharboneau asked whether the intent behind the recommendation is forwarded
with the recommendation. Samantha Keating clarified that the recommendation
from the committee would include a summary of the commentary.
Will Holton stated that the motion should include language that requires less
density and input from the City, Maricopa County, and ADOT regarding traffic
issues. Steven Scharboneau and Ozzie Virgil agreed that this was outside the
purview of the Committee. Samantha Keating clarified that the applicant is
proposing review of the site plan and elevations, so the committee can make
additional modifications within that context. Brennan Ray clarified that the
stipulations focus primarily on design. Will Holton stated that the design does
not meet Rio Vista’s Design Guidelines.
MOTION: Steven Scharboneau made a motion to deny PHO-1-21—Z-47-07.
The motion was seconded by Will Holton.
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil
in favor and Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in opposition.
Page 570
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
5. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
6. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
7. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he felt he had a better understanding of the process
after the second presentation. He stated that he would entertain a venue for
changing his vote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. Steven Scharboneau stated that it
would be positive to review information when members were first appointed to
the committee and review the purpose of the VPC. Will Holton asked if there
could be a motion to revote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. The Committee members
agreed that the item had been passed and they would not revote.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna suggested that there be an agenda item or
presentation regarding the purpose and intent of the VPC.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff for a future agenda item to
discuss community issues with ADOT and Maricopa County to bridge the
disconnect between the community and public entities.
8. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Page 571
(;+,%,7.
Page 572
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Danielle Jordan, Planner I, Assisting
April 21, 2021
ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Request: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation
1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021 meeting and voted
5-0 to continue the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting. The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting and voted
4-2 to recommend approval.
DISCUSSION
Dave Cisiewski, the applicant, gave an overview of the request. He stated that
the request is for approval of a conceptual site plan and elevations for a
multifamily community consisting of detached, standalone, single-story units to
be developed on a portion of the original rezoning area. He stated that the
subject property is located at the southeast corner of the I-17 freeway and Arroyo
Norte Drive and consists of approximately 16 acres located on the eastern
portion of a larger 26-acre lot. He stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan for the overall development. He stated the
Page 573
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 2
proposed use is a gated community consisting of 170 detached residences with
private backyards, covered parking, parks, community areas, and walking trails.
He stated that the parking is discreet and located near the residences.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that in addition to the required public notification, and due to
community input he received, a community meeting was held on March 31, 2021.
He stated that the comments from the community meeting revolved around the
name of the development, density, design and colors, compatibility, parking,
parks, amenities, traffic and site access. He stated that in response to community
comments the name of the development was changed from “Arise Arroyo Norte”
to “Arise North Phoenix” to prevent potential confusion regarding the existing
subdivision to the east. He stated that the proposed density of 12.2 dwelling units
per acre is significantly less than what is allowed by right under the existing
approved C-2 zoning. He noted concerns about the design, colors, and
compatibility with the surrounding area, and stated that the units are all single
story and the color scheme had been changed to a more compatible desert color
palette. He noted concerns about parking and stated that the site is providing 275
spaces while only 255 parking space are required and the developer will install
no parking signs along Arroyo Notre Drive, subject to City approval. He noted
concerns about parks and amenities and stated that the site will provide 7.4%
community open space, exceeding the required minimum 5% open space. He
noted concerns regarding traffic and stated that a traffic impact statement was
completed for the project.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being
met with the revised desert color palette. He stated that Stipulation 1.d regarding
landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e regarding parking areas
are more relevant to the development of a commercial shopping center. He
stated that Stipulation 1.g, regarding consideration of the site design for
residential uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17, is being addressed with an
approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17 frontage road. He stated that
Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being addressed with the
building elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
Adam Stranieri asked whether the resubmitted site plan and elevations were
strictly exhibits for new amenities and colors. Mr. Cisiewski replied yes and that
the site plan date stamped January 28, 2021 is the one that he would like to be
considered in reference to any recommended stipulations.
Sean Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he had concerns
about traffic at the Anthem Way exit on the I-17, ability to access the
neighborhood, and the potential increase in cars from a proposed school site to
the north and from new single-family development to the east. He stated that he
wished that more communication had been done between the City and Maricopa
County.
Page 574
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 3
Lisa Thomas, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that Arroyo Norte
Drive cannot handle any increase in traffic, especially with the new proposed
school to the north of the site. She stated that the project is not a good fit for the
area due to the increased density, safety issues, and fire hazards.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the developer is
unfamiliar with the area and that no parking signs will not be effective. He stated
that he had concerns with lack of parking, open space, and on-site amenities.
Andrew Brand, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that an opposition
petition was created in response to this case which includes over 100 signatures.
He stated that the virtual meeting format is a disservice to the community
members. He stated that he has concerns about the increased traffic along the I-
17 frontage road, the potential fire hazard, and the potential impacts regarding a
proposed school on the north side of Arroyo Norte Drive.
Harmony Brown, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about traffic along the I-17 frontage road, the increase in traffic from the
development and the proposed school to the north, the fact that there is only one
road providing access to her subdivision to the east, lack of parking in the
development, and fire hazards.
Richard Zimmerman, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he would
like the stipulation regarding a comprehensive sign plan to be retained in its
original form. He stated that he had concerns about the traffic impact statement
that was conducted by the applicant. He stated that the amount of parking that
the development has is inadequate. He stated that the site and surrounding area
lacks transportation infrastructure and adequate capacity for fire response. He
suggested that a stipulation be added that addresses a dark sky initiative or dark
sky lighting concepts.
Robert Townsend, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns
regarding traffic impacts to surrounding areas and the compatibility of the
proposed density. He stated that the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee did
not follow their own guidelines and standards in making their recommendation for
approval.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the site has
unique issues with traffic and is surrounded by properties in Maricopa County
jurisdiction. He expressed concerns regarding the City and County working
together to address traffic issues and stated that they need to look at a greater
area than merely the area around Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 frontage road.
He also had concerns about increased traffic with a proposed school site to the
north. He stated that the density is not compatible with the area.
Page 575
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 4
Tyler Estes, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the development is
not consistent or conforming with developments in the surrounding area and will
create traffic issues along Arroyo Norte Drive. He stated that he is concerned that
the developer is meeting the bare minimum requirements set by the Rio Vista
Design Guidelines and the City. He stated that he also has concerns about fire
hazards.
Dick Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he is concerned
with the increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive with the additional traffic created
by the new proposed school to the north and the new single-family development
to the east. He stated that the proposed parking is inadequate.
Jennifer Sylvester, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about the potential for increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-
17 Frontage Road stemming from the proposed development as well as from a
new proposed school site to the north.
Angela Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has concerns
about potential fire hazards.
Crystal Hodge, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she shares all of
the concerns regarding traffic issues as raised by previous speakers.
Wyatt Earp, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he agrees with
previous comments from those opposing the case and suggested that any
required traffic studies need to be completed on the weekend to reflect accurate
traffic data. He stated that he has concerns with traffic along the I-17 freeway and
the frontage road not having enough lanes to support the potential increase in
traffic.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that the concerns regarding fire hazards are regarding
natural wildfires that are occurring in the larger area and unfortunately, from the
standpoint of the PHO application, there is not a lot to do for wildfire prevention in
this context. He stated that through the Development Division site plan pre-
application process they received no additional requirements for street
dedications or other conditions regarding submittal of traffic statements or
studies. He noted that the development is not proposed to be a 55 and older
community. He stated that the proposed landscape palette is of a desert
character and the development will have low level lighting. He stated that the
density proposed is less than what is permitted by right in the C-2 zoning district.
Adam Stranieri stated that the original rezoning case included approximately 46
acres and established the C-2 zoning in 2007. He noted that the PHO request
consisted of approximately 16 acres in the southeast portion of the original case
area. He stated that the only public right-of-way adjacent to the site is Arroyo
Norte Drive along the north property line. He noted that the west property line is
Page 576
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 5
adjacent to a drainage easement and the other property lines are adjacent to
private property and are not adjacent to the I-17 frontage road itself. He stated
that the property across Arroyo Norte Drive to the north, where neighbors noted
that a new school site has been proposed, is in the boundaries of the original
rezoning case, but is not subject to this PHO request. He stated that he cannot
stipulate a requirement for no parking signs along Arroyo Norte Drive, as
suggested by the applicant, as these would be subject to approval from the
Street Transportation Department. He stated that the current PHO request could
not address larger regional or off-site traffic issues and require coordination with
other government agencies regarding these regional or off-site issues. However,
he noted that the Maricopa County Street Transportation Department submitted a
comment on the case and made a request to be included in the review of
relevant plans to allow collaboration with City staff and that this information was
provided to the Street Transportation Department staff as part of this case
review.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1 regarding approval of a conceptual site plan
and elevations was established as there were no plans at the time of the original
rezoning. He also noted that the case originally anticipated that the site would be
developed with a variety of commercial uses. He noted that the proposed site
plan depicts a multifamily residential development which consists of 170 units
with a density of 12 units per acre, which is below the potential density of the
existing R-3 zoning designation. He stated that the proposed open space of 7.4%
represents an approximately 50% increase over the Zoning Ordinance standard.
He stated that the proposed single-story building height is appropriate for the
area.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.a regarding architectural consistency in
elevations was primarily intended to address a commercial center with multiple
users. He stated that Stipulation 1.b regarding primary finishing materials
consisting of a natural desert context has been appropriately met through the
revised elevations, however he stated that he would not recommend stipulating
to these drawings due to the lack of 4-sided perspective and desired features,
which would be relevant to a general conformance review. He noted that the
original submitted building elevations contained 4-sided architecture and
identified architectural features such as window orientation, size, and variation
and varied roof lines. He stated that he would recommend general conformance
to the original elevations, however with an additional stipulation requiring building
and wall colors be muted and blend with the desert environment. He noted that
this stipulation was drawn from a design presumption in the Desert Character
Overly District. He stated that the applicant’s revised color palette would conform
with this design presumption.
Page 577
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 6
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.c regarding drive-through facilities,
Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping and arcades, and Stipulation 1.e regarding
parking areas were relevant to the original contemplated commercial
developments.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.f required special consideration be given to
site design for residential uses to adequately mitigate impacts of the I-17
freeway. He stated that in terms of site design the property is setback from the
freeway and the impacts are partially mitigated by, and more relevant to, the
adjacent parcel to the west which is adjacent to the I-17 freeway frontage road.
He stated that in addition to the approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17
freeway, no units front the west property line. He stated that in terms of the
submitted landscape plan there are a variety of medium and large canopy trees
that are located along the west property line. He asked Mr. Cisiewski about the
proposed landscaping within the private rear yards along with west property line.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that it would consist of low-level landscaping and, depending
on the lot orientation, a tree to provide shade which would be installed as part of
the initial development.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan was
relevant to the desire to see compatibility between multiple tenants within the
larger commercial development area envisioned in the original case. However,
he stated that in terms of architectural detailing the first submittal elevations
provide pop-outs, window variations and sizes. He noted that if the remainder of
the rezoning area was to develop with commercial uses, the stipulation would
remain for these properties.
Mr. Stranieri stated that there are no concerns with removing the requirement to
comply with Stipulation 2 regarding a comprehensive sign plan as the request
solely involved the one multifamily residential project. However, he
recommended a minor modification to clarify that the comprehensive sign plan
requirement would apply for commercial land uses only.
FINDINGS
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with
commercial uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in
the original application, it was unknown at the time how the site would
ultimately develop, what specific uses would be implemented, and the
scale and intensity of future development. Therefore, Stipulation 1 was
adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review through the public
hearing process once these became available. However, this stipulation
did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as permitted
in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly addressed
Page 578
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 7
this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on potential
residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit
multifamily complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences.
The proposed density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less
than the 17.40 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD
development option with bonus points. The proposed height is less than
the two stories and 30 feet permitted in the R-3 PRD development option.
Proposed open space is approximately 1.18 acres or 7.4% of the gross
site area, which is greater than the minimum 5% required. The proposed
residences are detached stand-alone units rather than a traditional
multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the proposal is
appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent with
the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and
creates a buffer between existing single-family development to the east,
adjacent commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the
review of the site plan and elevations. General conformance to the
proposed conceptual site plan and elevations is recommended as
discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations
regarding building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and
signage. This stipulation was originally intended to address the potential
development of the site with multiple commercial uses. With the
conversion of this stipulation to general conformance for the proposed
residential development, these concerns are not wholly relevant.
However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate level of
consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative
window treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied
rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate
for a desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof
tiles. Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco.
Accent colors are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color
palette intended to address concerns raised during public outreach
regarding the compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations
submitted with the request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue,
and red accent doors and a Mediterranean palette. However, the revised
elevations were limited to single-perspective renderings, did not
Page 579
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 8
incorporate the new door colors on the revised palette, and did not include
the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the original submittal.
Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that addresses the
use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting reflective
materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette
as there is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a
single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are
addressed in the applicant’s submittal as follows:
e) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is
located along Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road,
which will allow a continuous perimeter wall along the west property
line. No units front the west property line and there are private yards
located along this area.
f) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-
17 frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between
the I-17 and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large
parcel, subject to the stipulations of this case, and an approximately
70-foot wide drainage channel.
g) Sound barriers – A 6-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the
west perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does
not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest
unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
h) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a
variety of large and medium canopy shade trees along the west
property line in open spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow,
oak, and ash. However, the majority of the west property line consists
of private yards and trees are not depicted. The fact that the subject
property does not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and the closest unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-
17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced landscaping standards in
this area. The property is subject to existing Ordinance standards for
landscaping in multifamily developments. The remaining parcel
between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this stipulation and
landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for these
plans.
Page 580
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 9
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that
were relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple
commercial users. Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the
considerations are reflected in the conceptual elevations and the
recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was
relevant to the assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would
develop with multiple commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant
to the development of the site with a single multifamily development. The
applicant’s request to modify this stipulation is recommended to be
approved with a modification to the standard language to specify that this
requirement is only relevant to development proposals for commercial
land uses.
DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a
modification and additional stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
Page 581
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 10
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i. Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii. Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii. Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
iv. Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as walls
interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and finished with
materials similar to those of the buildings’ architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3. That 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of Teresa
Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 582
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 11
5. That 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
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior
to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S
OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. Please contact the Planning and Development Department, Tamra
Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 583
(;+,%,7/
Page 584
!"#$%$"
& '()*(+!
"$",-.%/%"! (0(1 2 ('(( 2( 3 ( *
*(+2 *4!)( 45!* 5)( **(+!
* (6 ( !$"$%$"7889 *((1 ()
* ('(( (4 ' *5( (4 ' ( *
(( !5)( '(4 ( * : (( ( ( * ((
)4!!' 0 * * '()*(+ ; (( !( (4
1**1 ! ( ** ) ' *!( <5! '
()(4 5!(< *5( *(( * 4 (4 7
"78 *
('(( ( () (+ !'$=%
*( !( !'; ( * 5( () *
(( !1 * *((4 (4 * 5( 4<!(
! ((4 ( * 784 (4 '! *)(( *!! ( *()
*(+ ( >)( 1!!)( *!'<
*5 * *?4! '*( 78 ( ( *@ ( * 5(
('(( 1 ( <;(' * 4?4<!4
< ( ! 5! ! !'1 * *@
( (( 0 0 <!) '!78
*A 1 1 !4 *1 * < ( ! '
( 0)( * !< 7 * ! 0(1 *)
* !! ('(( ( (15( + !
! (4 (4 ' (4 0 < ! 0
( ! * 4! !'(4! !( ; ((4 *!'
< ! 1 *78 4 * ((1(4!0(1 *'*!)
*1 *(4 5 (!7 ! ( (()(4
(4 78
*"$",-.%/%"1(4!5!( * 4 ('((
*54 ( * ! ( * )) * * (78
9 !'5!< * *! (5)( '(4<(!< (( !
Page 585
* <(! 5( * ** () * 4 (4 (4 *
4! )( *5'(B B!! 78 (!!' * ('((
(4 '!0 *A ! *(4 *( ()*(+ *
(B B!! 4! ) !'1* **(+ (( !5)(
'(4( ( 788
9*< < !(B B!! ( * *<
<1 *! 45 5'& ?4 ( *( 15!<
* * (( !)! ( *( 4! (45 ()) ( (
()1** < 5!)( * * ' (( !!( + ((
!(1 ' !)!'(4 ' 4* (4 789
* *)(!!(1 (C 1 * *(B 4!
D888888 4! (" ?4 * 4 * 4 4 ?4
(!45 0 ( 1!! ( * ) 4 (5!1 * *
4 (4 ! ( * *( *(4 '78 *
(( !< ( (( 5 * ?4 4! ( 78
D888888 4!
D888888& 00 1!!5 <!' *?4 < 11(4!
+ * 1!!5 4 78
D8888889 * ?4 !'4 * (( !78
4 * ( 1?4 5(4 *) () *E4F1 *1 *
* !; ( *9 () * (( !78 * 1 *
C(1 (4 *!') (( * ((4 *5 C' * (4 * * *(
(4 '5)( *(4 ! !! ' ( 4
( * (4 *() *789*< "%4 (
<( *(1 * + () *1 *?4 (7 * <(1!!5
4! G
D888888H4 : ( * ! ' ( !4 * (( !7
8 ( *5 ()(4 0(1! & ?4 ( * + (
()1 * < (54 : ( * ! ' 1*<
( (+ * 7
* ;4 )1() *(4 1**1 (4
()(!78& ?4 ( * ( < !( *
1**1 ! !'(4 ()(!!4 (!(
! ( 1 * * 4 (4 *(B
4! (4 4 ! < ( 78< (
< ( !!' * !!' !78 ( ( !4 4 (
Page 586
* *( 4 ! 4 (4 78 !'( @ *
** ()(4 *( 7
$78) '
6 () * ( '7 <(4 !' ('(( !(
( * () * (( ! * 4 () ('(( <7
89 5! (+ (4 *5( *(((!'( (78
* * ( ''EI"$ *((!1 *(54 <F (;
;4 (4 ( * ) ( 1!! ( * <
(4 () 6 ((4 (78!! 6) ((4 (4 '
5( *() * <!( )4!( ( *) ( (1**
;4 (!* (78 * * * (1'1 *
! ')(4 !' (4 ( ('(( <1 ** ( '
()* * 78 * (1 ! ' (4 7'
(! 61!!)4! ( *: 7
9!: 6; ) * 1 ! (*(+ *(4! ;
* (( ! * 78 * "/) 1'50 4< ' !10
*1 ( * (*(!' < ! ( *( (
(! *! 4! () ( 1!: 7 4! * ) ?4
) 1'!( 4 5' 6( ( * ) ( ( * <
(4 !)! (4 *< () '78 < <
! * *4 < ' * *<
?40!' ! *: * 7 (1!< *)(( *!! 1 *
4?4(1 !(1< ) ( *( *J( * 78 * 1
< 4 !' ( 5 ! ! * ! )(
' 78
( * 1( 1 < '1( * (4 (!' (4 1!!5
*(01 *) 1' 61*1 ( 788! * *<
! ) ()1!: 4 ( 1< 1 *(4 *
' () 4 4 (!!(14 ( )!' 74 * ( *
6; 1!! < ' (!) ( * (4 (4 '
1*1 7
=78 (4 ' (4
('(( '!((0!0 *54 ()(< "%%%%*(
' 4 !0 *( (4 + ! ;4 $=%1' 784
4 ! '+ *( () * ! '64! ((
1 * * 4! !' * '((!1**1(( *<
(784 * ( 1*<4** * () *
Page 587
*( 1 *(4 * !1 ) 4 4 11(4!
( * *78 *( 1' ((!! )( (4 1 /KL() *
4 1') ( (1 (4 0 (< *!)()(4 54 (
(1 1 (4 7
9 * * (( ! *(4!( 5 (<1 *(4
( (() *! :! 1!!( (
*5( 784 (4 ' ( * (( !
!( * + (4 1 * K%' ) ((4
"%%L < !')4 078 )* ( ' ' 4 *5(
(4 4 ( 0 < ( ( 1 ** * '
!4 1 *(4 !5!!:!5 0 5!!(4 ( !' (4
4?4 (5! * (4 0 1!!54 5' * 78 * (
45!!')4*(+ 0 ( !' (4 '1* * (( !7
) * (( ! !!'( ' ! 4 (45'
"%%L < !')4 0 * ('(( 78& ?4 (
1!!! '5: ) (* *(+1 ( ( *
+( 5 ( ('(( '78 * * 11!!
4)) <!' 45 > * (4 '1 *(4 0 ( !'4) 78
('(( *< 1 * *<!( @ ( '*<
< !(B B!! ( * 7 *<!(
* )4 (0' (() *()) (< *!' :!788 *'
!'* > * 3! 2 ! 050' 78
(1< 11(4!4 '! (!((0!( !' 1* * (( !
!!'()) (5(< * ( ( *( (
*( ('(( *78
4 ' * (( ! (4 !1 * * 7 1!! !!'
)) *1'()!) * * *5( (4 4* ('(
( *<( (+ 1!! ! : *> 1 *(4
?4 (4 (5( * *((1 !0789*
( ) ( * '! ( *(4 ' *
1!! 4!'5 ( *'( * * ('(( 78
( * ( ! 5(<( * ( !5( * 5(<E 4*
?4 0 ( * ( F1(( * <!(
* ( () 789( *< ' !*> 5
( *4 ()?4 ( () 4 4 *
5'(789! ( * () ) '
( 5! ' '(4 ( ( * 4 7 *(4!
* ( ( (1 * * (; *4 )
Page 588
( ( )( 1**'(4 (1(( & ?4 ( *(4!
5 4 (<)4 )( (< *4!() * ( (J ('(
( < (7& *(4! * ')( *4 () ('((
0 ( )( ( ( (4 < !')4 1**1!!(15
+( (* * '<!( + (( 78
*0'(4)( '(4 ( (7
!'
() ('(( 7
Page 589
'! 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ( 1< , $%$"%-"#
I 0 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
* (+ *(+, $%$"%-"#
1 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
*H ( M , $%$"%-"#
&!!B!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
M(!!'4 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ( ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
I'! 1< , $%$"%-"#
&*0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
'4 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
( ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N (M * 1< , $%$"%-"#
( 0! 1< , $%$"%-"#
M! *0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
>!I!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
* I *(+, $%$"%-"#
N(! 0! 0 , $%$"%-"#
4 *( 1< , $%$"%-"#
Page 590
H 'M * *(+, $%$"%-"#
' 5 1< , $%$"%-"#
1H *(+, $%$"%-"#
!' 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! !!*(( 1 < , $%$"%-"#
( 54 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ! *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
N) (1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 (1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
! (4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
( )) ( ! $%$"%-"#
*!9!!< *(+, $%$"%-"#
;(5!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I!(0 1< , $%$"%-"#
M*!!&( 1< , $%$"%-"#
IH4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
M0(5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
&(! (1 1< , $%$"%-"#
H '(4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 591
!9 !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!!* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
'@(4 0 < 0, $%$"%-"#
I H4! *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!!N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
H(5 !! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! 1< , $%$"%-"#
1< , $%$"%-"#
N( 9 !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
N))!5 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!)) 1< , $%$"%-"#
' 5 1< , $%$"%-"#
?4! 5!! ( !, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N!!4?4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
&(4 9' 1< , $%$"%-"#
M! H40 *(+, $%$"%-"#
* ' & !! , $%$"%-"#
I !! *(+, $%$"%-"#
*(+, $%$"%-"#
4 1)( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(0( 0 1< , $%$"%-"#
Page 592
( &< $%$"%-"#
N( *(+, $%$"%-"#
>(!* *(+, $%$"%-"#
!1!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
M'M&4)) *(+, $%$"%-"#
I ( H( & $%$"%-"#
*!'< *(+, $%$"%-"#
((0 1< , $%$"%-"#
5 ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
!>5 *(1 1< , $%$"%-"#
I'! 5 $%$"%-"#
4 (5 1< , $%$"%-"#
I!!'N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
M *1* ( 1< , $%$"%-"#
M*! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
H 4 '!( 1< , $%$"%-"#
N) ?4( *(+, $%$"%-"#
9' *(+, $%$"%-"#
(MM4!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
MI'!M&4)) *(+, $%$"%-"#
! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I &!!5(4 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 593
' ( $%$"%-"#
N(! !(> !54?4 ?4O $%$"%-"#
*(!! ( !, $%$"%-"#
4!!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
N( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( 5 ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 1' *(+, $%$"%-"#
H ((0!' ) *(+, $%$"%-"#
N( 4> *(+, $%$"%-"#
I '( 4 ( 0 $%$"%-"#
< *(+, $%$"%-"#
*19* ' 1< , $%$"%-"#
N (&4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
(( &4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
(!N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( (4 *! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I& 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
H!0H ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&!4!!< *, $%$"%-"#
* M( ( ' *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 594
M0N(* ( *, $%$"%-"#
4 *4' 1< , $%$"%-"#
( * 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
N4! ( , $%$"%-"#
!'M!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&< 4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
I * ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! 4 1< , $%$"%-"#
M0I( *, $%$"%-"#
*!5' !' ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&<9* 1< , $%$"%-"#
(!!'H' !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
H &< ( ! $%$"%-"#
*(!9* 1< , $%$"%-"#
H 5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
< 0 * $%$"%-"#
* 41 *(+, $%$"%-"#
H ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
I M' *(+, $%$"%-"#
&1H! *(+, $%$"%-"#
&((0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 595
5 M (B!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
*(!( *, $%$"%-"#
I & * 1< , $%$"%-"#
I (!0 1< , $%$"%-"#
*(+, $%$"%-"#
M(!!'( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N) <( 1< , $%$"%-"#
4!' *(+, $%$"%-"#
4> 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
H(> * *(+, $%$"%-"#
H0' ' < <!!O $%$"%-"#
*(1 ( !!, $%$"%-"#
N(* ) ( !, $%$"%-"#
N 0! !5 , $%$"%-"#
*M *(+, $%$"%-"#
M H! 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
*4 &1' *(+, $%$"%-"#
9!!4!!' *(+, $%$"%-"#
* H *, $%$"%-"#
( M, $%$"%-"#
Page 596
B0 1< , $%$"%-"#
!+ M!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
* H(( *, $%$"%-"#
! 1< , $%$"%-"#
I< (' 1< , $%$"%-"#
I 4 *, $%$"%-"#
<I 4 *, $%$"%-"#
& * *(+, $%$"%-$%
M ' (1 !!, $%$"%-$%
H (+O $%$"%-$%
I &( *, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I * &1' *(+, $%$"%-$%
H0'9* ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
(5 I!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
M 'I!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
4H !! *(+, $%$"%-$%
* * *(+, $%$"%-$%
I< ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I H( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N' ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
4 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
Page 597
('H (1 1< , $%$"%-$%
N ((!* *(+, $%$"%-$%
!! (I4) *(+, $%$"%-$%
(5 1< , $%$"%-$%
* (5'0 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H 9 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
H !* *(+, $%$"%-$%
( (* *(+, $%$"%-$%
4'M *!! 1< , $%$"%-$%
'!( 9(( *(+, $%$"%-$%
*' *(+, $%$"%-$%
H (4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
(!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
(5 I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
H '! *(+, $%$"%-$%
! *(+, $%$"%-$%
'I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
N) *(+, $%$"%-$%
' !! ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
!+ I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
! 1< , $%$"%-$%
&'!H ( !!, $%$"%-$%
Page 598
&( '!( *(+, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
*1H!0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
&<M' 1< , $%$"%-$%
*1M4!*' *(+, $%$"%-$%
!* *!! *(+, $%$"%-$%
0 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
< 4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
!!( ! $%$"%-$%
N *! *(+, $%$"%-$%
9 0 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
N 'H' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N('H4 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
M*!!O( 4! $%$"%-$%
*!!< ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N4! 6 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
!*H4 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
5 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
1' 1< , $%$"%-$%
' *(+, $%$"%-$%
& 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 599
II(1! 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
N * *(+, $%$"%-$%
())H4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
' 1 *(+, $%$"%-$%
& 14 1< , $%$"%-$%
4 >! *(+, $%$"%-$%
&( 1< $%$"%-$%
H H ; *(+, $%$"%-$%
N 'I(+ *(+, $%$"%-$%
&(0 !( *(+, $%$"%-$%
( M , $%$"%-$%
4 M 1 !!, $%$"%-$%
I I ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I ( ! $%$"%-$%
&55N(' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N( ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
H ' $%$"%-$%
9'O!! * *(+, $%$"%-$%
H (+ ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 4 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
* 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 1 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 600
'!! H!0 '( ' $%$"%-$%
*!* () *(+, $%$"%-$%
N((4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H M!! 1< , $%$"%-$%
N( *(!!(0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
*! 4 $%$"%-$%
*1MM4!! *(+, $%$"%-$%
M*!!!* *(+, $%$"%-$%
N* 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
&< *( ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
M*!M( ( ' *(+, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I'! ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
* '! ' *, $%$"%-$%
N) !5 * '! 1< , $%$"%-$%
N < 1< , $%$"%-$%
(5 &! 1< , $%$"%-$%
H(55'H!( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I< ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 1< , $%$"%-$%
' (!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N (!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
Page 601
M( O $%$"%-$%
&!! 0 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
< 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
I *!0( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N?4!0(1 *(+, $%$"%-$%
'M ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
1< , $%$"%-$%
H M !( *, $%$"%-$%
* ! ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 602
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:22 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
For Z-48-07.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:36 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
If this is passed, what are they planning to do about the traffic ? The weekends are already hard enough to get in and
out of the Arroyo Norte subdivision. Frontage road is always busy and the lighting is horrible at night.
Will there be a stop light put in ?
Will they widen frontage road ?
How will the tenants enter the new complex ?
We pay HOA fees to maintain Arroyo Norte road, will the tenants pay this as well ?
This should not be passed. There is plenty of area on the west side of the 17 to build on.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 603
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Allen
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:34 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Cc: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us
Subject: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
I am writing today in reference to application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07 Arise Arroyo Norte where the developer has
proposed a high density apartment complex. I currently live in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, we are a small
community and take pride in the beautiful open surroundings. One of the reasons I recently moved to Arroyo
Norte was due it being a less populated area with plenty of open desert scape. This high density complex will
completely change that. I am asking you to please deny this application.
I have listed my concerns below:
This type of housing would put a huge traffic burden on the frontage road as well as our access in and out of
the neighborhood. There is also a potential safety hazard for emergency vehicle access when traffic backs up
on the frontage road as it normally does.
The development is in no way similar to the surrounding area. 600-900 sq.ft. white apartments with colored
doors does not fit in at all with the desert landscape or the 400k+ homes the development will be in front of.
How can they be considered “luxury” with the size and density they are trying to fit in such a small plot of land?
Concerns with use of Arroyo Norte amenities. Our parks and trails that are privately funded and cannot take on
the additional population that would in fact be using these amenities due to the small “open park areas” they
claim to have. There are no trails, playground equipment, etc., included within their gated community and
Arroyo Norte offers all that in an un-gated community a few steps away.
Concerns this will bring other high density housing to an area that does not call for high density housing.
Page 604
I do feel that the developer and attorney are trying to pull a “fast one” in getting this development pushed
through. Legally as I understand, they were obligated to only send 85 notices due to the zoning. Knowing what
they were proposing, why not try and talk to the community to hear concerns? As you heard last night, many of
us felt unprepared for the meeting with no notice. Most of the neighborhood did not receive any notification of
the development other than a well hidden sign you had to search for, almost like they were trying to deter
residents from seeing it. The attorney claimed he only heard a few concerns prior to the meeting, the reason
being is no one knew about the development.
This whole situation is very disappointing and concerning. Again, I ask that you to please deny this application.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Allen
3737 W. Lapenna Drive
New River, AZ 85087
Page 605
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tara Bowe
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:26 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating;
tait@ttaitdevelopment.com
Subject: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Hello,
I’m hoping someone will read this and take consideration. I understand a lot may have already gone into this project, but
I don’t think enough research has been done.
I’ve lived in Anthem since June 2002. When I moved here there were no street lights and it was a cobblestone entry to
the water falls.
The growth has been amazing for many reasons, but there comes a point where it is too much. Traffic on Anthem Way
between Navigation and the Outlet Mall is a nightmare any time of day now. My daughter goes to pre school just on the
west side and I live off the frontage road, on the way to your planned new development. It should be a quick drive to get
her there and back to log on for work, but I get caught up in horrendous traffic both ways. Turning left onto Navigation
from Anthem Way (east bound then North bound) could take several cycles of the light. That problem will only get
worse with more people living that direction. It is one lane each way from Navigation all the way up to New River Road.
Not only is the traffic going to get substantially worse with this development, the overcrowding will affect the parks,
parking in our small town grocery store parking lots and restaurants, and resources. Us East side residents are footed
with a very large EPCOR water bill, while the west side is on Phoenix water. Adding more people to our already bogged
down infrastructure is simply not smart, not safe, and not fair.
Surely, this beautiful development could fit somewhere closer to town. Somewhere along the 303, for example.
Please don’t bring more constitution and congestion to Anthem. It was the most quiet, quaint little town when my
family moved here and we have slowly become overcrowded. Please don’t add to that. For the sake of the dream we
had for our family living here, to raise our children in peace.
Page 606
Tara Bowe
623-363-1274
Page 607
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:25 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Pho-1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:AndrewBrand
Sent:Sunday,March7,20219:18AM
To:SamanthaKeating
Subject:PhoͲ1Ͳ21ͲZͲ48Ͳ07Ͳ1
DearMs.Keating,Iama6yearresidentofArroyoNorte,thesmallcommunitylocateddirectlyadjacenttothis
rezoningproposal.IunderstandthereisapublichearingonMarch9at6:00p.m.Thisproposalwillaffectoursmall
communitymorethananyothercommunityinthearea.IwouldliketospeakonTuesdaywithyourapproval.
Evenafterover10yearsinexistence,ourHOAboardisstillunderthecontrolofourdeveloper,TerraWest/Starwood
landventuresuntilthefinal67lotsaresomedaybuiltupon.Unfortunately,thusfartheyhavenottakenanactive
interestinthebettermentorpreservationofthiscommunityanditsstrainedresources.Wehopetheywillshareour
interestsinregardtothezoningproposal,butwedonotyetknowifwecancountonthemdoingso.
Historically,residentssuchasmyselfhavehadtotakeituponourselvestodowhatwecantoinformallyfillthatrole.I
kindlyrequestafewminutestoexpressmyconcernswiththisproject.
Yourstruly,
AndrewBrand
3731WestLapennaDr.
NewRiverAZ85087
SentfrommySprintSamsungGalaxyS8.
Page 608
Page 609
Page 610
Page 611
April 19, 2021
Dear City of Phoenix Planners,
PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01, also known as ”Arise Arroyo Norte”, or “Arise North Phoenix,” is
scheduled for a public hearing before the Phoenix planning hearing officer on April 21, 2021 .
We, as residents and homeowners of the Arroyo Norte community, and as a neighboring
community to the proposal before you, stand together in firm opposition to the proposed, and
respectfully ask that the City of Phoenix reject said proposal on grounds which we see as critical
to the character, safety, and the long-term viability of our beloved neighborhood and the
surrounding area.
1. Character
Arroyo Norte is an independent HOA, consisting of approximately 230 homes and is located
immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the Arise proposal, with Anthem on our southern
border and undeveloped state land to our north and east. Our community lies in the foothills
north of Phoenix Proper, in an area prized for its wildlife, open spaces, richly diverse habitat,
and high quality homes. Located on Anthem’s northern border, Arroyo Norte was designed to
preserve and enjoy this unique and valued environmental setting, blending seamlessly with
Anthem’s design and commitment to open spaces, dark skies and an active lifestyle.
Anthem's award winning amenities, lush wash preservation, trail systems and open spaces
speak for themselves. Perhaps less known is the fact that as small as Arroyo Norte is in
comparison, we boast an exercise trail encircling our community, spacious parks, a massive
central grass park, and one trail that is particularly popular located adjacent to our richly
vegetated and largest wash. Truth is, no one would know they had left Anthem without being
told. It is a seamless transition and integration of our communities.
The PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01 would be located right up against Arroyo Norte and Anthem, but it is
something altogether different than either one. We sincerely believe that the Application
before you involves a proposal that violates both the character of the surrounding communities
and the design guidelines set forth by Rio Vista Village. Ironically, the Arroyo Norte
community, like Anthem's East side, although not part of Phoenix, meets the Rio Vista Village
guidelines perfectly, whereas the Phoenix proposal before you, does not.
We have attended several Rio Vista Village committee hearings and have reviewed the plans
submitted by FDG acquisitions, and in short, we believe that the proposal fails to meet those
guidelines on a number of fronts, some of which are inevitable for a high density proposal
located next to a more dispersed low-density single-family community such as ours. We
maintain that the following items are in conflict with the Rio Vista design guidelines:
ࢂ Stipulation 1Gi: requires that at a minimum the structures are required to include
bricks and stones as well as other features to blend with the surrounding desert
landscaper and other homes in the community. The proposed elevations do not abide
the required stipulations.
ࢂ Guidelines:
ࢂ Dark Skies will be negatively impacted and the quiet evenings we would expect in
Page 612
this area will be interrupted.
ࢂ Wash standards are quite simply unaddressed in this proposal. Furthermore, we
inquired about the fate of the (unnamed) wash within this parcel and adjacent to
the West side of this proposal. This wash flows roughly from North to South, briefly
passing through the Firethorn community before entering the outlet mall drainage
system and continuing into the desert south of Anthem. We have created a 10
minute drone video showing the entire extent of the wash in question. This video
will be supplemented]
ࢂ Beautification and the trail systems are not included in the proposal. To the best
of our knowledge, FDG acquisitions has expressed no intent in terms of wash
preservation, beautification and the trail systems we have come to expect in this
area.
These are just a few of the outstanding items which we maintain are out of compliance. FDG
Acquisitions has agreed to address several other items which were clearly out of compliance,
including paint color and landscaping inconsistent with the surrounding area and the Rio Vista
design guidelines encouraging a natural desert environment. Even so, Arise is environmentally
and aesthetically sterile. It does not include nature areas or enhance those natural areas
surrounding it. And it certainly doesn’t match the character of our homes.
2. Safety
Traffic is part of this category. As stated previously, Arroyo Norte is located to the east of the
Arise proposal, at the terminus of Arroyo Norte drive. We are able to exit our neighborhood in
only one direction. Arise, and the Anthem Preparatory Academy (K-12 school with no bus
service) project just announced across the street from Arise, will together, add a massive
amount of traffic to our main road. All traffic from our community and both of these
developments get funneled onto the frontage road, which is just one lane in each direction.
This is a high-speed roadway with an already famously dangerous intersection at Arroyo Norte
drive with a history of high-speed accidents. This intersection was already dangerous. Any
additional traffic will add fuel to the fire.
Wildfires and traffic jams: If there was a single reason, Phoenix should reject this proposal, this
is it. The I-17 freeway backs up every single weekend in the warmer months and on holidays,
and several times a month comes to a complete halt as a result of accidents or wildfires. As a
result, these frequent freeway closures bypass traffic onto the same frontage road that serves
as our lifeline and escape route in the event of an emergency. Invasive grasses, climate change,
and increased human activity in the area have quickly escalated the fire threat. In addition, we
live in the foothills with unique downslope wind events from the North/Northeast. These wind
events are surprisingly strong and can be relentless in this area, lasting for days.
In other words, we are very worried that our only escape route will be choked with freeway
traffic when we need it most. Families here have a legitimate fear of a wildfire during a strong
wind event without the necessary road infrastructure to allow us to safely escape. Furthermore,
the traffic jams will prevent emergency personnel from reaching our community when we need
it.
Page 613
3. Community Resources
Arroyo Norte may look like Anthem, but instead of over 10,000 homes paying dues like Anthem
does, our expenses are split just 230 ways. Our dues, already exceed those of Anthem, and it is
already difficult to compete with their amenities, particularly their gym and pool which we do
not have access to. Furthermore, we have a much higher percentage of grass than Anthem
does, and without the reclaimed water infrastructure we would need to match them. In short,
we pay top dollar for our water, 75% of the dues we pay in fact go toward our parks and over
half of our budget goes toward watering our grass.
We maintain that the Arise proposal should not be approved without consideration of the
clear and direct financial impact it will impose on its nearest neighbor. Our community is not
gated and the Arise proposal is located right next to us with its ingress and egress 50 yards from
our 100% privately funded main park. If history is any guide, neighboring communities use
open parks, private or not, and with a high density rental unit without a single ball field,
basketball court or playground, it is unquestionable that our parks will be used by the tenants.
There are no publicly funded Phoenix parks or playgrounds anywhere near this proposal. In fact,
the Arise proposal is essentially on a city Island, surrounded by 100% privately funded parks in
Anthem and Arroyo Norte. FDG acquisitions will already benefit from cheaper Phoenix water
rates compared to the exorbitant Epcor rates Arroyo Norte residents pay. The idea that we will
end up effectively subsidizing this community with our parks, is grossly unfair.
Arroyo Norte residents have met with the developer’s attorney and have attended several Rio
Vista Village committee hearings. The developer has refused to make any good-faith offer to
even the playing field. They repeatedly emphasize their “large” central Park and backyard
grass. However, we would urge city planners to look closely at what this proposal really offers,
comb over the dimensions, and compare those amenities to those in Arroyo Norte and Anthem.
In summary, this proposal is out a line with this area. It will detrimentally effect the way of life
that the neighboring communities, such as Arroyo Norte, have come to expect and will present
an alarming fire hazard without an adequate escape route to both tenants and homeowners
alike. When considering impact fees paid to the city, please consider the community that will
truly be impacted more than any other--That is Arroyo Norte.
For the reasons listed above, and others not elaborated here above (such as inadequate parking
and other concerns), we oppose the Arise development in the strongest of terms. We cannot
accept the very real hazards based on the current state of inadequate transportation
infrastructure in the immediate area and beyond. We appeal to the sense of safety and
responsibility as your committee considers these issues. And should this committee decide to
proceed with this project despite the unsafe conditions for which you are now on notice, FDG
acquisitions should, at a bare minimum provide funding for an overhaul of the Frontage
Road/Arroyo Norte drive intersection. FDG should either pay for the use of Arroyo Norte parks
or for gates to protect our privately funded assets, which will now be exposed to a high density
development next door.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Page 614
Residents of Arroyo Norte.
Page 615
Danielle M Jordan
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:13 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Attachments: Photo_6553740_DJI_140_jpg_4690138_0_2021420185552_photo_original.jpg; Photo_
6553741_DJI_141_jpg_4332897_0_202142018564_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553754
_DJI_154_jpg_4283744_0_202142019630_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553758_DJI_158
_jpg_4271088_0_202142019742_photo_original.jpg
One last supplement. These are photographs I took last night. Sorry these are coming in the final hours, but I'm just not
sure if the hearing officer is familiar with the area. This shows that we are essentially landlocked. No connections to
anthem.
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO
Date: 4/20/21 11:23 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
I can confirm that I have you registered.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:06 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: RE: Speaking request
I registered to speak yesterday morning. Can you let me know if you did not receive it?
Page 616
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO
Date: 4/20/21 8:40 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
Please use the link on the attached agenda to register to speak.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:48 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: Speaking request
Good morning Danielle. I wish to speak at the 10:00 a.m. hearing on the 21st. Agenda item number
2 Involving Arroyo Norte.
Thank you.
Andrew Brand
Arroyo Norte resident neighboring this proposal
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
Page 617
Page 618
Page 619
Page 620
Page 621
Danielle M Jordan
From: Rob Careway
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:56 PM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave
concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the
negative impact on our life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix
‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there
were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high
density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too
many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone
bedroom window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open
park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of
Phoenix residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail
which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex
has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo
Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact
the FDG Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the
notification sign between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners
to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition,
David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much
count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we
stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a
Page 622
weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve
Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and
increasing the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned
facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not
Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please
consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
Page 623
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:25 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Rob Careway
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:08 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s,
picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr
which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
Page 624
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
Page 625
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Chad Cox
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:17 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
To whom ever it may concern, here are a few of my initial thoughts about this development.
170 homes if each home averages 2 cars each due to lack of public transportation, could result in 340 cars. If there are
only 250 or so parking spots this will end up like most rental complexes where tenants will have to park in neighboring
streets. This does not count for oversized vehicles, that will struggle parking and maneuvering in the
proposed neighborhood.
Epcor charges high rates for owners in arroyo norte. This also goes for all of our parks. Our HOA only seeds for summer
time now in order to save money. The parks being proposed in new development are not parks, people can not throw a
foot ball or kick a soccer ball without hitting a house or damaging property. This means people will use what they
perceive as thei arroyo norte park. The added traffic to the arroyo norte parks will increase the financial burden already
being experienced by arroyo norte residents.
weekends, holidays and accidents increase traffic on i-17 resulting in drivers getting off I-17 onto anthem way to
navigation way to gavilan parkway to frontage road to new river road. The four way stop at navigation / gavilan is
already unbearable. 340+ new residents will add to that.
I understand that the houses are rental and the space is classified as retail which means they wont be sold and should
not affect my home comps. However I am concerned about increased crime etc that come with lower income housing. I
am also worried that a poorly themed tiny homes like trailer park will be an eye sore to any one looking to buy a home in
arroyo norte causing the neighbor hood to be “a stable declining neighborhood” ultimately affecting our home values.
I understand that this neighborhood meets “Phoenix laws” , but the proposed neighbor is ridiculous in arizona where
there is so much space to spread out.
Page 626
Thank you
Chad Cox, Arroyo Norte Home Owner
Page 627
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise North Phoenix
Attachments: Screenshot_20210404-191703_Maps.jpg
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Tyler Estes
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:45 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Arise North Phoenix
To the Rio Vista Planning Committee,
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday.
It has been a sleepless night for me as I have processed the words spoken at the meeting yesterday evening.
I am a Millennial, aged 37, and am a high income earning one at that with 4 kids and probably a #5 in the near future. And I feel
like the government and bureaucratic agencies designed to protect my community, my home, my family, and my hard earned
dollars are failing us all.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Prepatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus directly across
the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that going to look with Carlines
and school events? You want to talk about Titanic? How is that going to sink when a natural disaster happens and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew already that there were "not enough lifeboats, not
by half"?
So let me understand this....the developer Vincent will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents
because they are childless millennials and baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing, and the developer focus groups told
them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30% higher rent to live
across the street from a SCHOOL? And will this developer also BAN children from living in their community? And if the answer is
"no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developers character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable"
community is without a playground because they don't want the expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across
the street. Ludicrous.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the southwwest side,
that's where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. And I see no consideration for that
on the site plans. So when a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs that normally turns Arroyo Norte Park into a small lake and
instead all that water goes towards Arise North Phoenix.....What then?
Page 628
No one has bothered to look at their apartment plans and point out the fact that there is no storage space in these tiny
apartments. No resident has a garage for their cars, toys, and stuff. They barely have closets, and the 1.5 bedroom unit is just a
extra "flex room" with no closet.
This developer knows full well what they are building and their true feelings towards my family, property, community, and quality
of life are absolutely clear. They are directly reaching into my life, and the lives of my neighbors, and extracting their pounds of
flesh to line their pockets with. They are a Judas Goat. They say that they have "luxury apartments" but that is pure marketing
hype. You can also have a "Luxury Wastewater Facility" and it will still smell the same as a non-luxury kind.
What I can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize and use
every means available granted to us by our Rights as citizens of the United States and citizens as of Arizona, to let our voices
be heard loud and clear. So that with our Speech we can dissade as many potential clients away from Arise North Phoenix as
possible.
Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Tyler Estes
Page 629
Page 630
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise Approval
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Flaming
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:50 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Arise Approval
Hello,
I am writing to express my disappointment with the way last night’s meeting was handled. I understand that this
job is thankless and hard, and that you are doing your best. But we were done a disservice last night. Several
residents, myself included, were using the previous meeting as a template for this one, and had our hands
raised for comment specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing about any changes to the Arise
plan (turns our there are none) before responding. In the previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and
this time they were ignored. In my opinion, there was far too much taking the developer’s word for things.
In our previous meeting with David, many concerns were raised and supporting facts presenting, all of which
FDG chose to simply ignore. This type of community will undoubtedly create serious congestion issues in and
around this neighborhood. One only has to look at the nearest similar communities - Elux in Tramonto and
Avanti Deer Valley - to see that this is predictable. Online reviews from residents complain of a number of
things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up parking in fire lanes and blocking
dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay for their spaces are never
able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At Arroyo Norte, we
don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood. David’s
suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there will be too many cars
- it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our
houses. So we have to be terrible neighbors and call the cops because FDG wants to maximize their profits
(make no mistake about why they used the word viable).
I tell only this one story to illustrate the dismissive attitude and condescension with which we have been met. It
shows that this entire process is one of sloughing off responsibility to someone else. Arise is fine with people
Page 631
parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for emergency
vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two years
ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of my house and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would have
meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact feels and sales tax revenue.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our
neck. They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we
supposed to card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no
concessions. They’re painting them brown. That’s the only real change they’ve made. They don’t want to be a
part of this neighborhood. They want to extract revenue from this neighborhood.
Who knows? Maybe Vince is right. In which case, he gets money and we get nothing. If he’s wrong, he still
gets money and we get our neighborhood negatively impacted with no recourse. The people with the most to
lose here have been given the least agency. It’s legal, but it’s not right.
The saddest part is that all of this was acknowledged by the committee and then they voted in favor of it
anyway. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s inconvenient, and
at worst it’s unsafe. What about that is worth approving? And how much longer were you going to spend
thanking these guys for having a couple extra zoom meetings and changing the paint color? Do you think that
when a kid crossing the street between parked cars to get to the playground gets run over, we’ll all say “but at
least those apartments are brown?” Shame on you.
Respectfully,
Todd Flaming
Page 632
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:51 PM
To: Adam Stranieri; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Rina Forbush
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:37 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
; PDD Rio Vista VPC ; pdd.sightplanning@phoenix.gov;
PDD Fire Prevention; PDD Traffic Review ;
tmullarkey@anthemcouncil.com; dfermoile@anthemcouncil.com; mdemichele@anthemcouncil.com;
knorthcutt@anthemcouncil.com; pconley@anthemcouncil.com; sreeths@anthemcouncil.com
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC, Anthem Community Council
From: Richard & Rina Forbush, Arroyo Norte home owners
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing $SSOLFDWLRQ3+2=
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter.
We moved into Arroyo Norte in September, 2020 loving the neighborhood for the space and the quietness it
provides. The price to move in here was much higher than other houses we looked at within the Anthem/North Phoenix
area.
The building of this high density apartment complex is of grave concern to us and the other homeowner’s in Arroyo
Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style is obvious. We truly believe
this type of housing is not in line with the Rio Vista planning committee agenda. We find it troubling and unjust to place
a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
We would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC’s statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together.
Page 633
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom window and
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to the Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt cause traffic issues and lead to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
)LUHVHUYLFHVZLOOFRPHIURP'DLV\0WEXWWKH\ZLOOQRWSD\LQWRLW
We are starting to get more and more input from property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG Acquisitions has
obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between two bushes and
NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe FDG Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with
such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’.
We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact
we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday.
Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
We find it hard to believe that an adequate traffic study was conducted on 3/10/21 – a DAY after the meeting we
had!! Who has the pull to get that done so quickly when we discussed in the meeting that it will probably take weeks to
get that scheduled in these Covid times. Obviously someone knows someone and this report will come back with ‘no
issues’.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
We respectfully request you to PLEASE reconsider such high density housing in this area. We did not relocate from high-
density New Jersey to buy an expensive home to be surrounded by a high density rental complex. Please consider
leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks
amongst other wild animals.
We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard & Rina Forbush
-
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are providing to you. Preliminary
tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary purpose
is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and promotional
messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for EY Client Portal and the ey.com website, which track e-mail preferences
through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-mail@ey.com. If you do so,
Page 634
the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5 Times Square, New York, NY
10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
Page 635
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:32 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: fuqua32001
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:28 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
To whom it may concern,
This is in regards to the recent application to build multi-housing units on the east side of the I-17 frontage road and
south of Arroyo Norte Dr. It has been brought to my attention that this is an apartment complex consisting of 170
units. That is a rather large density for this location. This will have very adverse effects on the current surrounding
neighborhoods.
To start the traffic increase to the I-17 frontage Road will be tremendous in itself. It is already being debated that the
frontage road is over used and not a safe passage of travel due to the current load placed on it. This will increase this
danger to extreme measures. The frontage road is already subject to multiple accidents from traffic, debris problems,
traffic jams on most weekends, and increased danger to pedestrians including elderly and children.
The next area of concern is the impact on the public safety of this area. Public safety including fire and police
department. That portion of land is City of Phoenix land that would technically be serviced by the City of
Phoenix. However, due to lack of resources and location of fire stations and police stations will have to be serviced by
the mutual aid system, now requiring a further extension of Daisy Mountain Fire Department resources and Maricopa
County Sheriff’s officers. These are all services that this development does not contribute funding to therefore not
Page 636
allowing for them to increase their responders to handle the impact. If per say an incident is happening in the new
multi-housing development and another incident happens in the Anthem or Arroyo Norte neighborhood; the response
time will be well past the expected and needed time to make an impact for life safety.
Another area of concern would be the impact on the private amenities. This includes the parks, playgrounds, hiking
trails, and private roads. The wear and tear of these things is payed for by the residents of the surrounding
neighborhood. It was stated that this new development will not be offering any types of extra amenities. This would
mean the new residents will be using the surrounding residential amenities. This has nothing to do with not wanting to
share, rather what is fair for the maintenance and addition to handle such an increase of individuals using these
amenities. The park at Arroyo Norte already has moments of being extremely full. With an increase of housing at this
scale the park will be overwhelmed.
Then we come to the amount of on street parking. This is always a huge concern when apartments are developed. The
current neighborhoods around this land do not allow for on street parking. Is this something the complex will pay for if
a current neighborhood resident is fined for when it is an apartment resident parking on the street?
Last concern at this time is the impact it will have on the utilities of the area. The current neighborhoods pay American
Water for water which is billed at a higher rate than the City of Phoenix. The neighborhood is at the mercy of American
Water on that price. This development now has to use American Water which is a for profit company. This new
development only pays City of Phoenix rates. Where does American make up the lost revenue. It is not fair for
American Water to lose revenue but it is also not fair to the current residents to have to make that up.
These are all current concerns that the surrounding neighborhoods have and that the city/county should also take into
account.
Thank You
Tre Fuqua
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Page 637
From: Samantha Keating
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24:10 PM
Danielle,
Please see below correspondence for the above PHO case. I received a few others over
the weekend which I will send over shortly.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tyler Estes
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 11:05 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Resident in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, which is the neighborhood adjacent to
the proposed location for Arise Arroyo Norte (Arise AN) apartment complex.
The rezoning of this land to residential use is of concern to me for the following reasons:
1. Starting in 2021 ADOT will begin the 5 year project to widen I-17 from Anthem Way to Cordes
Junction. To access Arroyo Norte Drive you must either exit I-17 southbound at New River Rd, or exit
at Anthem Way Northbound and go to the eastern side I-17 Frontage Rd/Gavilan Peak Parkway. On
many weekends as traffic on the I-17 becomes congested this congestion overflows onto the
Frontage Rd and Arroyo Norte drive becomes inaccessible. This always causes me great concern
because if Emergency Services are needed their response times will be severely impacted by the
overflow I-17 congestion. This problem is only going to become more acute as Phoenix continues
adding residents and those residents seek to access Northern Arizona via I-17, and as construction
and its inevitable delays occur the inaccessibility of Arroyo Norte Dr will only become worse . Risking
the lives of several hundred Phoenix residents at an apartment complex in such conditions is
irresponsible, and the City of Phoenix could be held liable.
2. Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 Frontage Rd is a dangerous intersection. The Frontage Rd is high
speed, and due to the proximity to I-17, the northbound traffic on the Frontage Rd appears to be the
traffic traveling on I-17 northbound. The speed of this intersection and the poor visibility in day and
Page 638
night driving conditions has led to numerous serious collisions. I would ask that the Council consider
putting in a provision if it is determined to rezone this space, for the developer to pay for a traffic
circle to be installed at the Arroyo Norte Dr and I-17 Frontage Rd intersection. This will slow down
traffic while maintaining traffic flow, and reduce the number of serious collisions at the intersection,
thus making it a safer intersection for potential Arise AN/CoP residents.
3. Arroyo Norte is in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Our water utility is Epcor Water. At present
the City of Phoenix has no amenities for the residents of Arise AN. Our community has a private park
located just a few hundred feet from the proposed location of Arise Arroyo Norte. There is no
realistic way that the residents of Arroyo Norte will be able to keep the residents of Arise AN from
utilizing our privately paid for facilities. After reviewing the plans of Arise AN they have almost no
green spaces for their residents. They have no park or playground, which is very out of sorts with
other builders in the surrounding area. Even the Bela Rosa Apartments (located at Anthem Way and
Navigation Way) are residents and Anthem HOA members with access to all Anthem HOA amenities.
Bela Rosa Apartments, which were originally built to be high end Condominiums, have playgrounds,
a community center, and green spaces for their residents. So Arise AN is very out of place when
compared to other developers in the area. Because the developer of Arroyo Norte chose to use
fresh drinking water from Epcor for watering the grass at our HOA park and green spaces we as an
HOA have MASSIVE water bills which are straining our HOA. We cannot absorb nor subsidize Phoenix
residents who have no easy access to CoP parks and recreational services and who will use our HOA
park instead. Causing wear and tear and well as damage to our facilities. If the council moves
forward with Arise AN then the developer of Arise AN must provide their residents with amenities
more in line with the surrounding communities. Such as a large community center, Park(s),
playground(s), exercise trails, and pay for the installment of a gate at the entrances to Arroyo Norte
to deter the usage of our private HOA facilities.
4. Arise AN is out of alignment with the surrounding communities. All of the surrounding
communities, whether it be the Anthem HOA, Arroyo Norte HOA, the soon to be built Circle
Mountain Ranch HOA, Tramanto HOA, etc all provide their residents with single family dwellings, and
amenities such as parks, etc. The construction of an apartment complex that is isolated from teh
surrounding communities and does not belong to a community HOA also isolates its own residents,
and alienates homeowners in the surrounding communities as such a facility will negatively affect
their own home values. That is not right. And the only entity that wins in that scenario is the
developer of Arise AN. The developer of Arise AN must seek out the boards of HOA's adjacent to
their proposed development and seek membership for its residents into those HOA's. And build the
apartments according to the guidelines of that community, with full access to their HOA amenities
for the residents of Arise AN since the CoP does not have any facilities nearby.
I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Page 639
Tyler Estes
Page 640
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:BobGallego
Sent:Sunday,March7,20211:08PM
To:SamanthaKeating
Subject:RIOVISTAVILLAGEPLANNING
DearSamanthaKeating:
One of the concerns that I have about the building of rental units is the amount of traffic that will be
added to Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 access road. On numerous weekends especially during the
long hot summer months there are traffic jams on I-17. Traffic then increases on the frontage road
which could prevent first responders from getting into Arroyo Norte development if there is an
accident, medical emergency, fire, etc. Just this past week there was a fatal accident just north of the
entrance to Arroyo Norte. A vehicle traveling north on I-17 left the highway and crashed on the
access road. The access road is only two lanes – one heading north and one heading south. Most of
the area between I-17 and the access road between Anthem Way and New River Road only has a
wire fence to prevent wild animals from getting on I-17. The wire fence is useless in the event of
serious traffic accidents Also I-17 narrows from three lanes south of Anthem Way to two lanes
heading north which also causes backups and increases the risk of accidents.
Bob and Gail Gallego
3822 W Abrams Dr
New River, AZ 85087
Page 641
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Sean Gates
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:19 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
Thank you Will and Steve for Saying NO to a bad project that will have a negative impact on the north valley.
Good Luck Ozzie Finding Your Backbone for the next housing project, hopefully it will be built right next to
your neighborhood.
This is directly from the City of Phoenix's website about what YOUR JOB is as a member of a VPC...
The VPCs provide guidance on a wide range of city-wide and local issues and provide
RECOMMENDATIONS on these items to the Planning Commission.
TRAFFIC is a LOCAL ISSUE for our Arroyo Norte neighborhood!!!!! The right move was to VOTE
NO until ADOT, the city and county came up with a plan to deal with our traffic issues.
You didn't support us and thanks to you, traffic will be WORSE and our property values will decrease!
Sean Gates
Arroyo Norte Home Owner
Page 642
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:20 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Problems With This Proposal
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Dick Gates
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:18 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Problems With This Proposal
To: Mr. Virgil
Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning
From: Dr. Dick Gates, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
First of all, is this a development that you would approve for your neighborhood next to your community?
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
Fire protection is a major concern as Phoenix city nearest fire station is a distance away.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
Both Anthem and Arroyo Norte were well planned and provide a family atmosphere that reflects community stability
that is sadly lacking in this rental development.
Page 643
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window will
not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr which
is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
1. Parking spaces are very inadequate- most families have two vehicles which if so, equals 340 needed spaces not
counting any visitors parking. This doesn’t take in account box truck deliveries either!
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County. Why isn’t there an entrance off of frontage road like the extra lane for turning for the Bungalows on Jomax road
off of Frontage Road?
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dick Gates
Dr. Dick Gates
3728 W. Abrams Dr.
New River, AZ. 85087
rgates1943@gmail.com
225.573.9149 Cell
Page 644
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Laura Grob
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Samantha Keating; lisa@dfgroup.us; Alan Stephenson
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Laura Grob, Arroyo Norte homeowner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high-density housing, Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high-density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowners in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
lifestyle are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the
Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area. The outward appearance of the units does
not match the desert scape of the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom
window. These spaces will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, walking trails etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will no doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte
Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
Page 645
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County and include the high traffic times.
These apartments would receive service from Daisy Mountain Fire department but would not be paying to
support the fire department which also seems unfair.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this report been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high-density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities or pay to
install a gate on our neighborhood (one was not needed previously). Add enough parking to deter street parking.
Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Drive. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert
space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls, red tail hawks and other wildlife I
see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
Page 646
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:58 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Laura Grob
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:12 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC; tmullarkey@anthemcouncil.com; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
To:
The Rio Vista Planning Committee
Cc:Kate Gallego, Mayor of Phoenix
Terry Mullarkey, Anthem Executive Director
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday at the Rio Vista Planning Committee meeting.
I have to say we are all very disappointed in the outcome.
Many of our concerns were not addressed as fully as they were during the first meeting. All of you were basically on our
side with our concerns and then last night most of you did a full 180 and voted for this proposal without further
traffic/fire/police studies. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s
inconvenient, and at worst it’s unsafe. Please explain again how no traffic study was needed but they did it at their own
expense by parking a truck on Arroyo Norte Drive on a Wednesday afternoon to count cars. Then a traffic analyst states
that she used calculations based on a traffic study handbook. Just last Saturday it took me 20 minutes to get off at exit
229 to get to Arroyo Norte. Weekend traffic backup pictures were sent to the committee by one of our homeowners
and obviously ignored as nothing was mentioned about it. Just last year we had a fire behind Daisy Mountain. If we had
to evacuate our area with all the additional residents, how would that work? How would the emergency service vehicles
get into our area? How many homes would be lost? Never mind the fact that if an ambulance needs to get into our
neighborhood on almost any Saturday afternoon in the summer it will be almost impossible and will take even longer
Page 647
with the additional traffic. Thank you to Will and Steven who voted no because they are nearby residents who feel our
pain and understand the traffic and safety issues we will be facing.
So, this leads us all to believe you were either enticed in some manner by the lawyer/developer, or you really don’t care
about our wellbeing. If the second is the case, then we will need to know who to complain to in order to get
remediation or to rectify anything that happens to us or our property within Arroyo Norte. It was even admitted that
emergencies were not considered in their traffic study.
In this meeting, many had their hands raised for comments specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing
about any changes to the Arise plan (turns out there are none of any major consequence) before responding. In the
previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and this time they were ignored. That seemed deliberate. The developer
got to speak and was, frankly, condescending. We had no chance to rebut.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Preparatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus
directly across the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that
going to look with car lines for pickup and drop offs and school events? You want to talk about the Titanic sinking which
is what (I believe) Will had said? How are we NOT going to sink when a natural disaster happens, and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew that you could have prevented the issue?
The developer, Vincent, will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents because he is so
sure that they are childless millennials and/or Baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing. The developer focus groups
told them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30%
higher rent to live across the street from a school? And will this developer also ban children from living in their
community? And if the answer is "no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developer’s
character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable" community is without a playground because they don't want the
expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across the street and Anthem playgrounds are right around the
block.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the
southwest side. That is where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. I see no
consideration for that on the site plans. When a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs which turns Arroyo Norte Park
into a small lake, the water will go towards Arise North Phoenix. What then?
There is no doubt that there will be a parking issue with 1.5 cars per unit. For a two bedroom unit, there will definitely
be 2-3 cars! How no one sees this issue is beyond me. Online reviews from residents in similar communities such as
Tramonto and Avilla complain of a number of things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up
parking in fire lanes and blocking dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay
for their spaces are never able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At
Arroyo Norte, we don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood or
along Arroyo Norte. David’s suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there
will be too many cars - it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our houses.
So we have to have the burden of calling the police? Is that really how the police should be spending their valuable
time? Issuing parking tickets and towing vehicles? We don’t have that issue now and shouldn’t be forced to have this
issue in the future because not enough parking can be provided.
Arise is fine with people parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for
emergency vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two
years ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of Arroyo Norte Houses and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would
have meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact fee and sales tax revenue. The Board asked about impact fees and was told by David he knew nothing about
them.
Page 648
Seems like some of the board members are using this area as a ‘test’ site to see what happens. They stated that they
will not vote affirmatively on the next site if this does not work out and items like safety and traffic are not taken
seriously. Why can’t those items be addressed BEFORE this development is built? We moved into this community in
hopes of having a safe environment for our retirement. Now we have to worry about ‘what if’s’ because a developer
had to line his pockets without doing all the leg work.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Just because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our neck.
They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we supposed to
card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no concessions. They’re
painting the houses brown to conform with Rio Vista Board recommendations. They also changed the name because
they shouldn’t be taking our name at all. That’s the only real changes they’ve made. They don’t want to be a part of this
neighborhood, but they want to leverage our neighborhood's resources.
What we can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize
and use every means available to let our voices be heard loud and clear.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
Arroyo Norte Homeowner
Page 649
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:48 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise High Density Housing
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Kelly Johnson
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:51 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise High Density Housing
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Kelly Johnson, Daniel Rogers, homeowners in Anthem, AZ
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio
Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City
of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units
too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
Page 650
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough
parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please
consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well.
Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great
horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson
Daniel Rogers
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 651
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Arroyo
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Karen Lyons - Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
I would to first Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. I have lived in the Arroyo Norte community
for 8 years. The high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and
Anthem. The development will have a negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. Based on the call march 9 2021, I don’t believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’
or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other
factors that did not materialize. I feel it is troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment
complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. The white exterior does
not lend to desert landscaping. How many white houses do you see in any development in the area?There are
far too many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
Page 652
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these. Please note the
Artoyo Norte community bears the sole HOA dues which and again are private parks.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will know doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area and lends to add to the traffic danger.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County. I have experienced 1 plus hour
delays to either leave or return to My home. Also very concerning for police and fire to reach our Homes.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Paint exterior desert color scheme, not white. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from
using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage
road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista.
Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks we see on a regular basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen Lyons
Page 653
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:45 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Complex
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: A G
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:04 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Complex
Good evening.
I just wanted to write to you to echo all of the concerns my neighbors discussed in regards to Arise near Arroyo
Norte in New River. We cannot afford for others to use our facilities, it would bankrupt us as families and the
traffic is already awful anytime it’s a busy weekend or an accident happens and to add this much more the way
they have planned is irresponsible. I absolutely oppose this complex in it’s entirety.
Sincerely,
Mandy MacDuff
Sent from my iPhone
Page 654
Danielle M Jordan
From: A G
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 12:09 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: Arise traffic
Good afternoon,
I wanted to send in a few pics of traffic that we have been saying happens every weekend on the 17 at Arroyo Norte
area. They aren’t great but should show what we mean. This is actually much less than the worst as well and if possible I
will grab more shots. This is just a weekend surge without a wreck or something that makes it much much worse.
Thank you!
Page 655
Mandy
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
The link ed
image can not
be d isplay ed.
The file may
hav e been
mov ed,
ren amed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 659
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:57 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirsten Myers
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:40 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
I am writing to express my extreme concern regarding the apartments planned on the corner of the frontage
road and Arroyo Norte, as I live in the community and have for over 5 years.
1. As it stands, on weekends it is already a challenge to enter and exit our community due to the traffic on the
17 and the 100’s of cars that attempt to bypass it by going to New River road.
2. Additionally, the exit from our community is dangerous, especially at night, when the headlights from the
freeway are challenging to discern from those on the frontage road. Even without additional traffic a three way
stop would be a improvement.
3. Our HOA is already lacking in financial resources. Though the apartments are not part of our community, I
can guarantee that they will utilize our parks and trails. This will put an additional burden on our HOA, causing
our dues to increase in order to maintain/replace/water/landscape additional wear and tear/damage to our
facilities.
4. There is not enough parking for that many units. They will, inevitably, end up parking on Arroyo Norte,
causing a dangerous situation for those walking/biking/running.
I request one of the following occur.
1. DENY the application.
2. If that is a non-starter, then reduce the number of units, add additional parking AND add more amenities to
the complex, to limit the amount of people who come to our facilities.
Page 660
3. Develop it in a Senior Living center, as we do have an aging community, the two facilities in Anthem are at
capacity and there is additional need.
I would also like to voice my concern about the fact that my family was never informed about the hearing on
the 9th. We never received a notice in the mail, in spite of the fact that this will directly impact our community,
the value of our home and our access.
Kirsten Myers
623-826-4022
Page 661
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Tonight’s meeting
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Ponsler
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:43 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Tonight’s meeting
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
“I’m going to vote ‘yes’ this time, but not next time” - Ozzie Virgil
Tonight, I listened as this committee stated that while they were concerned about the traffic, acknowledge the
safety implications to the Arroyo Norte Community, and discuss how this “luxury” high density housing unit did
NOT fit into the Rio Vista requirements, then vote to recommend.
Both Ozzie and Massimo made it very clear that this development didn’t fit, yet they would vote ‘yes’ this time
and then reevaluate as a committee so that this doesn’t happen again.
So my question is this, why does it matter next time, but not this time? Why does the safety and quality of life
for the next community matter, but the safety and quality of our community does not?
A response is greatly appreciated.
Ashley Ponsler
Sent from my iPhone
Page 662
From: Samantha Keating
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:33:24 AM
Attachments: Traffic 2020 Facebook post.docx
Traffic 5-22-2020.png
Traffic 9-2016.png
Traffic 10-5-2019.png
Traffic 12-1-2019.png
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:11 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC; Samantha Keating
Subject: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
I created a folder showing traffic issues in this location, by using Adots Facebook
page. ( word doc)
The traffic filters through Anthem and on to frontage road when I17 is backed up.
The residents will never be able to leave their subdivision.
Notice non of the pictures are on holidays or 3 day weekends.
Thank you,
Raymond
480-225-3546
Anthem Air Conditioning LLC
Page 663
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 19, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: The crash has cleared at Anthem Way, but traffic remains backed up.
UPDATE: There are now extreme delays on I-17 starting in Anthem where a crash is blocking all lanes.
Consider delaying travel or taking an alternate route such as State Route 87 north to State Route 260
west in Payson. SR 260 connects to I-17 in Camp Verde.
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · …lane remains closed. Continue to expect long delays from Anthem
northward.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB closed at New River
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 22, 2020 · Public · …the Valley. Heaviest traffic is in the Anthem area, but with moderate backups
through New River and Black Canyon. Drive safe!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Dec 26, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: Traffic is now flowing normally.
alerts.ping4central.com
Extreme delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 23, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic now flowing.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 backed up 15 miles.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 4, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 7:45 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but continued to expect some pockets of
moderate-to-heavy traffic.***
alerts.ping4central.com
Expect heavy delays I-17 NB
Page 664
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jul 2, 2020 · Public · **6:16 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Except for a couple of pockets of slowing near Black
Canyon City, the severe delays appear to have eased on northbound I-17. We encourage all drivers to
use the free ADOT Alerts app, the AZ 511 app, and www.az511.gov to stay up-to-date on road traffic and
conditions. **4:56 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Delays are easing somewhat on I-17 NB ... but there is still a long
backup from Carefree Highway to New River, and near Black Canyon City as well. Please allow extra time
if you're heading north this weekend.
Expect long delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jun 13, 2020 · Public · …BACKUP on I-17 northbound persists from near Anthem to near Rock Springs
for a non-blocking crash at MP 239.
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB delay near Rock Springs
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 22, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: These delays have eased. ------------------------------------------------ You can
see for yourself that traffic remains incredibly heavy between Payson and just south of Rye. If you are
planning on heading north, it might be best to put it off for awhile!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Apr 17, 2020 · Public · REMINDER: I-17 in Phoenix will be closed this weekend while crews apply asphalt
sealant to extend the life of the freeway’s pavement. The work will be done along I-17 SB on Saturday
and I-17 NB on Sunday in areas between 19th and Peoria. MORE: bit.ly/2RHJlCW
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
Aug 8, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 3:23 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but with some continued moderate-to-
heavy delays between Black Canyon City and Sunset Point.*** NOW: Expect delays on Interstate 17
northbound past Black Canyon City.
Page 665
Arizona Department of Transportation
KĐƚϱ͕ϮϬϮϬͼWƵďůŝĐͼKD/E'^KKEdK/-17 near you: The new Diverging Diamond Interchange at
Happy Valley Road is scheduled to open to motorists in mid-October. It's a lot easier than you think!
#divergingdiamond bit.ly/36DwTwn
Arizona Department of Transportation
Oct 17, 2020 · Public · ROAD WORK REMINDER: Expect lane restrictions on I-10 between SR 587 and SR
387 for paving. EB and WB I-10 will be intermittently narrowed to 1 lane between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m.,
Sunday through Thursday for 3 weeks. Only one direction will be restricted at a time.
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 31, 2020 · Public · 11:19 p.m. All lanes are now open in both directions.
=============================================== 9:34 p.m. The left lane of I-17 northbound is
now OPEN bear Bumble Bee at milepost 248. The right lane remains closed due to the brush fire.
Continue to expect delays. =============================================== 7:26 p.m. I-17
northbound lanes are still closed near Bumble Bee. There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The
southbound lanes are open. =============================================== 6:30 p.m.
Northbound I-17 is closed near Bumble Bee; there is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 6:00 p.m. The northbound lanes of I-17
remain closed due to a brushfire; the SOUTHBOUND lanes are OPEN. (There is no estimated time to
open the northbound lanes.) =============================================== 5:32 p.m.
Northbound I-17 remains closed near Bumble Bee due to a brushfire; the southbound lanes have
reopened. There is no estimated time to open the northbound lanes.
=============================================== 5:08 p.m. The SOUTHBOUND lanes have
reopened; the northbound lanes remain closed, with no estimated time to reopen.
=============================================== 4:31 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 4:02 p.m. Both directions
of I-17 remain closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are
advised to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 3:30 p.m. I-17 is still closed in both directions
due to a brushfire (SB: MP 262; NB: MP 248). There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 3:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
Page 666
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 2:33 p.m. I-17 remains
closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at milepost 248 (near
Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin Road).
=============================================== 2:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) Drivers are encouraged to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 1:33 p.m. Both directions of I-17 remain
closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are advised to
postpone travel or use alternate routes. =============================================== 12:02
p.m. BOTH directions of I-17 are now closed due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248, near Bumble Bee; the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 259, near Cordes Lakes.
There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The on-ramp at Bloody Basin Road will also be closed.
alerts.ping4central.com
Delays on I-17 NB/Bumblee Bee
Arizona Department of Transportation
Aug 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 5:04 p.m. Traffic has eased on I-17 NB***
alerts.ping4central.com
Traffic slow on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Feb 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic has eased on I-17 northbound.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 north backed up 10 miles
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 7 p.m. All lanes now open.*** ***UPDATE: Left lane open. Right
lane remains closed.*** ***UPDATE: I-17 NB is now closed at New River.***
Backups on I-17 NB near BCC
Page 667
Page 668
Page 669
Page 670
Page 671
Page 672
Danielle M Jordan
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:34 AM
To: Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc: Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:52 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : Salemlisa46@gmail.com
Comments : This is addressed to Will Hilton and Ozzy Virgil. Thank you sirs for bringing up the traffic issues at Arroyo
Norte. We have major issues with traffic daily not to mention on holiday weekends. Traffic is often diverted from the
highway to the Frontage Road causing major congestion on the Frontage Road. Their has been numerous vehicle
accidents exiting and entering our neighborhood.
Submission ID: 898e5f438366433da263c2cf4a756670
Form Submission On : 3/9/2021 6:52:19 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 673
Danielle M Jordan
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:32 AM
To: Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc: Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Hello,
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:45 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : salemlisa46@yahoo.com
Comments : Good morning, I am a resident of Arroyo Norte Subdivision in New River. 85 residents where notified on
February 22, 2021 of a hearing regarding application PHO-1-21-Z-48-07. This was the first time that any of us had heard
there was a proposed rental community being planned/developed adjacent to our community. Although I do not have
an issue with the development itself, I do have an issue with the traffic pertaining to the development. The issues that
are occurring currently in our area pertain to the I-17 Frontage Rd at Arroyo Norte Dr. Holiday weekends and ongoing
accidents on the I-17 create gridlock on the Frontage Rd causing residents to be trapped in or out of our subdivision. As
well as, during the evening hours it is difficult to distinguish vehicles traveling on the Frontage Rd verses I-17. Adding
potentially upwards of 170 additional vehicles daily due to this development on the I-17 Frontage Rd will only add to the
difficulty of ingress & egress from Arroyo Norte Dr.
The meeting with the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee on March 9, 2021 resulted in the continuance until the April
2021 meeting. Recommendations by the Committee members were that the Developer have better communication
with the residents of Arroyo Norte and explore the traffic study issue. I applauded the Committee for hearing the voices
of the residents during this meeting and encourage the City of Phoenix to hear us as well. Please for the safety of all
parties require a traffic study for this development.
Page 674
Sincerely,
Lisa Salem
928-897-7330
Submission ID: a4986e69b9d34845815b0eec11e31928
Form Submission On : 3/10/2021 9:44:38 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 675
Danielle M Jordan
From: Schake, Robert - PHX
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:27 PM
To: PDD PHO
Cc: rdschake@gmail.com; Careway, Robert - PHX
Subject: Comments regarding Item #1, case (application) #PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Good afternoon,
As a resident of Arroyo Norte, I am against Item #1, Case #PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1.
I understand these are supposed to be luxury apartments, but based on the location, I cannot believe anyone would pay
a higher price to live along an access road which fronts I17. I understand that my home, itself, would not seem that far
from this same road, but it is far enough into the development, if it matters.
With that being said on about what the true value of these apartments would be, I am concerned about this being rental
property, and bringing clientele that are only renting, versus owning, that close to our very close knit neighborhood.
We are not currently a gated community, so with this proposed apartment complex being at the head of our main street
in and out of our development, I can envision the following things happening if the developer would be allowed to
continue:
x Parking problems along both sides of Arroyo Norte
o This would cause traffic congestion for those residents, along with all of us that have homes within
Arroyo Norte
o Strong potential for vehicular and pedestrian accidents due to the parking, increased traffic, and those
walking
o Arroyo Norte is the MAIN road in and out of our development. Yes, there is also Circle Mountain Road,
but that is not deemed our main access road, and thus is not maintained in a sufficient manner for this
purpose
x Apartment residents using our park areas
o Apartment residents would be tempted to use our park areas with no responsibility for cost of
maintaining it, respecting it, or, picking up after themselves
o If their residents make use of our park areas, that takes away availability for us homeowners, who are
paying for it, to use our own areas
x Safety issues
o The Anthem area already has some crime, in regards to automobile break-ins and such, and general
vandalism
o The addition of these general-housing (again, not luxury) apartments could bring additional safety and
security issues for our neighborhood
x De-Valuation of our property
o I have great concerns of what such an apartment complex could do to the value of our homes. We have
invested a fair amount into our home, and property, and I am afraid that such development would have
a negative impact on home appraisals.
At the very least, if my opposition, and those of my fellow residents who also oppose, is not enough to stop this
development (but I hope it is), I believe there are a number of stipulations that should be addressed and agreed upon by
the developer before they are allowed to proceed. These are:
Page 676
o Developer responsible for gating of Arroyo Norte’s main access road (Arroyo Norte), as well as Circle Mountain
Road on the north side of our development. The design, products used, and builder for the gates would need to
be approved by Arroyo Norte neighborhood (a committee would need to be established to represent our
neighborhood, to coordinate review and ultimate design approvals)
o Gates are to restrict general access to our neighborhood, but mainly to restrict apartment residents
from using our park areas
o Developer responsible for ensuring NO parking allowed along Arroyo Norte, Circle Mountain Road, or basically
outside of their development plot.
o Perhaps ask developer to be responsible for the widening of the access road from the southern point of their
proposed property line, and north to the Circle Mountain Road entrance.
o Developer responsible for paying for installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Arroyo Norte and the
access road (the main entrance into our development).
Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter.
Bob Schake
3706 W. Teresa Drive
New River, AZ 85087
480-215-1988
rdschake@gmail.com
Caution: This email is both proprietary and confidential, and not intended for transmission to (or receipt by) any
unauthorized person(s). If you believe that you have received this email in error, do not read any attachments. Instead,
kindly reply to the sender stating that you have received the message in error. Then destroy it and any attachments.
Thank you.
Page 677
Danielle M Jordan
From: LISA THOMAS
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:41 PM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Re:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive
Danielle Jordan,
I am a homeowner at Arroyo Norte. I’ve been living here in this quiet community since 2015. I am writing to you to advise of
my opposition to this proposal to have 170 very small apartments built so close to my home and my community. These
apartments will cause a great deal of overcrowding, congestion, high volumes of traffic, noise and light pollution, as well as
create a real danger for many of the young children that live in this community.
The proposed apartments would be built entirely too close to our existing community, creating the illusion to the renters that
they are actually a part of this community, but in reality they would not be. Allowing the name of our community Arroyo
Norte to be used by the proposed apartments further creates the illusion that they are a part of this community and they are
not. They will be led to believe they can use our private parks, and private trails, and park their cars and trucks along our
community streets because there will not be enough room for parking their vehicles inside their gated complex of 170 tiny
apartments.
In addition the entry and exit for the proposed apartments is too close to existing homes and entirely too close to the main
park and playground for our children. Why not make the entrance on Frontage Road? That would make it much safer if for
some reason these apartments are approved. It would be much safer for the children and it would lessen the illusion that the
renters are a part of this community. If would also be beneficial if an emergency vehicle had to get into that
apartment complex because of a fire or other hazard. That is just way too many small apartments to be crammed into a very
small area. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. And should there be a fire in those apartments our community would be put at
risk because the proposal is to place them entirely too close to our existing homes.
There was a fire just north of our community back in the summer of 2019. It was on the BLM land just north of Circle
Mountain Drive that borders our community. The day of the fire, residents of this community were not able to get back into
our community from the Frontage Rd coming from Anthem. The road was backed up for miles and for hours and residents
were forced to leave their cars along the Frontage Road and walk home in the hot sun. What if there was another emergency
where someone had to get in to rescue someone at their home for a medical emergency? Residents could not get back to
their homes. Elderly parents were left home alone for hours, people could not get home to their pets. Residents were told to
go hang out at Starbucks until the fire was put out. There was no evacuation but imagine if there was? My point is that with
more people and more cars here Arroyo Norte Drive will not be able to handle the traffic and the congestion.
Weekends are even worse, when people are traveling up North. Travelers think Frontage Rd is a cut thru and a way out of the
bumper to bumper traffic on 1-17. It’s hard enough now to get to the grocery store on a weekend, or to run out to Urgent
Care. Imagine how dangerous it will be with 170 more small apartments with at least that many more cars,
but realistically probably double the amount of cars.
Page 678
Building these apartments would ruin our community in more ways than one and I want you to know that I oppose them
100%. When I moved here, I was told if anything would be built on that lot it would be something commercial, but I was
assured it would not be residential, and no people would be living there.
I hope you consider my concerns and vote against these apartments.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Thomas Arroyo Norte Homeowner
516-527-0317
Page 679
Attachment C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and
Arroyo Norte Drive
Request: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for approval
by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval with a modification and additional stipulations, as
recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Rio Vista 3/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 5-0.
4/13/2021 Approval. Vote: 4-2.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: Approval, with a modification and additional
stipulations.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer’s
recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-
07-1, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with an additional stipulation to
require a minimum of two separate public pedestrian pathways, shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, to be provided from the closest parks in the development and connecting to
North Whisper Lane on the south and Arroyo Norte Drive on the north.
Maker: Busching
Second: Howard
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: Yes
Page 680
Findings:
1. The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with
commercial uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in the
original application, it was unknown at the time how the site would ultimately
develop, what specific uses would be implemented, and the scale and intensity
of future development. Therefore, Stipulation 1 was adopted to require
Planning Hearing Officer review through the public hearing process once these
became available. However, this stipulation did recognize that the site may
develop with residential uses as permitted in the approved C-2 zoning
designation. Stipulation 1.f directly addressed this by establishing criteria for
mitigating impacts of the I-17 on potential residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit multifamily
complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences. The proposed
density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less than the 17.40
dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD development option
with bonus points. The proposed height is less than the two stories and 30
feet permitted in the R-3 PRD development option. Proposed open space is
approximately 1.18 acres or 7.4 percent of the gross site area, which is greater
than the minimum 5 percent required. The proposed residences are detached
stand-alone units rather than a traditional multifamily apartment complex. The
scale and intensity of the proposal is appropriate for its location along the I-17
freeway corridor, consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Land
Use map designation, and creates a buffer between existing single-family
development to the east, adjacent commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway
corridor.
2. Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the review of
the site plan and elevations. General conformance to the proposed conceptual
site plan and elevations is recommended as discussed in these findings.
3. Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations regarding
building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. This
stipulation was originally intended to address the potential development of the
site with multiple commercial uses. With the conversion of this stipulation to
general conformance for the proposed residential development, these
concerns are not wholly relevant. However, the residential elevations do
provide an appropriate level of consistency while still providing for architectural
diversity with three home styles. Architectural features include multiple window
styles, decorative window treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent
colors, and varied rooflines.
4. Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate for a
desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof tiles.
Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco. Accent
colors are limited to front doors.
5. The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color palette
intended to address concerns raised during public outreach regarding the
Page 681
compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations submitted with the
request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue, and red accent doors
and a Mediterranean palette. However, the revised elevations were limited to
single-perspective renderings, did not incorporate the new door colors on the
revised palette, and did not include the level of detail on the four-sided
elevations in the original submittal. Therefore, an additional stipulation is
recommended that addresses the use of colors that blend with the desert
environment, prohibiting reflective materials, and limiting accent colors. The
revised color palette date stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this
stipulation. However, the stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in
reviewing the final palette as there is no building elevation that depicts all the
appropriate colors in a single image.
6. Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are addressed
in the applicant’s submittal as follows:
a. Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is
located along Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road,
which will allow a continuous perimeter wall along the west property
line. No units front the west property line and there are private yards
located along this area.
b. Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-
17 frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between
the I-17 and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large
parcel, subject to the stipulations of this case, and an approximately 70-
foot wide drainage channel.
c. Sound barriers – A six-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the
west perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does
not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest
unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
d. Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a
variety of large and medium canopy shade trees along the west
property line in open spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow,
oak, and ash. However, the majority of the west property line consists
of private yards and trees are not depicted. The fact that the subject
property does not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and the closest unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-
17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced landscaping standards in
this area. The property is subject to existing Ordinance standards for
landscaping in multifamily developments. The remaining parcel
between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this stipulation and
landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for these
plans.
7. Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that were
relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple commercial
users. Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the considerations are
Page 682
reflected in the conceptual elevations and the recommendation for general
conformance.
8. Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was relevant to
the assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would develop with
multiple commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant to the development
of the site with a single multifamily development. The applicant’s request to
modify this stipulation is recommended to be approved with a modification to
the standard language to specify that this requirement is only relevant to
development proposals for commercial land uses.
Stipulations:
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site plan(s) and
elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28, 2021, WITH
SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
A MINIMUM OF TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAYS, SHADED TO A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT, SHALL
BE PROVIDED FROM THE CLOSEST PARKS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONNECTING TO NORTH WHISPER LANE
ON THE SOUTH AND ARROYO NORTE DRIVE ON THE NORTH.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are not
directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
Page 683
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i) Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for
buildings and signage.
ii) Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii) Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
iv) Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as
walls interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and
finished with materials similar to those of the buildings’
architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan approval
for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of the
freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
5. That 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 or
modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary based
on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be notified
by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of any
Page 684
PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site plan
meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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 685
Attachment D
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
July 1, 2021 (10:00 a.m.)
APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-21--Z-48- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 07-1 opposition x applicant
Approximately 400
feet east of the
southeast corner of
I-17 and Arroyo
Norte Drive
(I-17 Frontage and
Theresa Lane)
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 6/3/2021 46026 North 35th Avenue
New River, Arizona 85087
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 7/1/2021 Richard Zimmerman
HEARING (10:00 a.m.) 602-527-6938
Ballininphx@yahoo.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Development is not harmonious with the area. Streets infrastructure cannot support this
development. This development is a fatality on the frontage road waiting to happen. City of
Phoenix has not done their research in regard to streets infrastructure. This development
posts a major public safety hazard.
RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 6/9/2021
Alan Stephenson Ra’Desha Williams
Joshua Bednarek Village Planner
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Report
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 - Approximately 400 Feet East of the Southeast Corner of I-
17 and Arroyo Norte Drive (Ordinance G-6873)
Request to hold a public hearing on the item and consider adoption of the Planning
Commission recommendation on June 3, 2021.
Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203, LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
Proposal:
1. Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for approval by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
3. Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Concurrence
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021 meeting and continued the item
by a vote of 5-0. The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their
April 13, 2021 meeting recommend approval by a vote of 4-2.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on April 21, 2021 and
recommended approval, with a modification and additional stipulations.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on June 3, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with an
additional stipulation.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on June 9, 2021 requiring
that a public hearing be held on this item.
Page 461
Location
Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 462
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE
FINAL, ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-48-07-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-4948.
____________
AF
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
T
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately
400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive in a portion of
Section 10, Township 6 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.
R
STIPULATIONS:
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
D Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site plan(s) and
elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28, 2021, WITH
SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass and
style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
Page 463
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD NOT
BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED JUDICIOUSLY AND
WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural desert
context.
A MINIMUM OF TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS,
SHADED TO A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT, SHALL BE PROVIDED
FROM THE CLOSEST PARKS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND
CONNECTING TO NORTH WHISPER LANE ON THE SOUTH AND
ARROYO NORTE DRIVE ON THE NORTH.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are not
directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d.
e.
AF
Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break up
T
the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses to
adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17, such as
innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers, and
increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
R development and at a minimum include the following:
i. Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
D ii.
iii.
iv.
Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as walls
interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and finished with
materials similar to those of the buildings’ architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Page 464
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan approval
for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of the
freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
5. That 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 or
modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
AF
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary based
on the results of the survey.
T
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be notified by
the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of any PLANNING
AND Development Services Department preliminary site plan meetings; Zoning
Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
Rb.
c.
Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
Terry Marron
D8.
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER SHALL BE
RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING
APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-4948, this portion of the rezoning is now
Page 465
subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-4948 and as modified
in Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject
site until all the stipulations have been met.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by
the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining portions hereof.
2021.
AF
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of July,
ATTEST:
T ________________________________
MAYOR
R
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
D
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 466
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21-- Z-48-07-1
A PORTION OF SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 6 NORTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE
GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN
DEED RECORDED IN DOCUMENT 050507564, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, SAID CORNER BEING ALSO THE NORTHWEST CORNER
OF TRACT “C”, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL PLAT FOR “ARROYO NORTE –
UNIT 4”, RECORDED IN BOOK 1004, PAGE 1, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT “C”, SOUTH 00
DEGREES 05 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, 1004.75 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST, 150.00 FEET;
AF
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 05 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST, 150.00 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF TRACT “D”, ACCORDING TO THE FINAL
PLAT FOR “ANTHEM UNIT 57”;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF TRACT “D”, NORTH 89 DEGREES 59
MINUTES 12 SECONDS WEST,
T
535.68 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 32 SECONDS EAST, 247.46 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 05 DEGREES 17 MINUTES 51 SECONDS WEST, 894.37 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 23 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 36 SECONDS WEST, 50.24 FEET
TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF ARROYO NORTE DRIVE;
THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48
MINUTES 12 SECONDS, 12.54 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 48 SECONDS WEST, 25.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 55.00 FEET;
R
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 11 MINUTES 48 SECONDS EAST, 25.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 48 MINUTES 12 SECONDS EAST, 606.15 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
D
CONTAINING 691,062 SQ. FT. OR 15.8646 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.
Page 467
Page 468
$WWDFKPHQW%
Staff Report: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
APPLICATION #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
EXISTING ZONING: C-2
ACREAGE: 16.0
REQUEST: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
APPLICANT: Law Office of David Cisiewski
OWNER: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Approval with a modification and additional stipulations, as recommended by the
Planning Hearing Officer.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on April 21, 2021 and recommended
approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject site is located on 16 acres approximately 400 feet east of the southeast
corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive and is zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial). The
applicant’s request only affects a portion of the 46.65 gross acres included in the original
rezoning request (Z-48-07-1).
Page 469
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
The proposed site plan depicts a 170-unit multifamily complex consisting of detached,
stand-alone, single-story, bungalow-style residences at a density of 12.2 dwelling units
per gross acre. The proposed site plan depicts private backyards, covered parking, and
private open spaces including a linear central park, a pool, and connected pedestrian
pathways, constituting a total of 7.4 percent open space.
The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan and elevations for approval by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 to develop the multifamily community on a
portion of the rezoning site. The applicant stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan or elevations for the overall site.
The applicant has provided the following justifications for their requests:
x Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being met through the revised
desert color palette.
x Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e
regarding parking areas are more relevant to the development of a commercial
shopping center, which was assumed to be the most likely future land use in the
original rezoning case.
x Stipulation 1.f, regarding consideration of the site design for potential residential
uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17 is being met with an approximate 500-foot
setback from the I-17 frontage road.
x Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being met with the building
elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
The applicant requested modification of Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan. The applicant noted that a comprehensive sign plan would be
relevant if the larger site was being developed with multiple commercial uses and
requested that the comprehensive sign plan requirement exclude residential uses. The
applicant added that comprehensive sign plans are typically required in large commercial
developments rather than individual residential developments.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
On August 29, 2007, the Phoenix City Council approved Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1
for a change from C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) and R1-8 (Single-Family Residence) to C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) on a 46.65 gross acre property located at the southeast
corner of Interstate 17 and Teresa Lane, subject to stipulations. The case was heard
concurrently with GPA-NWPA-1-06-1 to amend the General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the subject property from Undesignated to Commercial.
These original cases were processed concurrent with the property’s annexation into the
City and the intent was to allow a commercial development on the site. However, the
possibility that residential uses may be developed was considered, as evidenced by the
conditions of Stipulation 1.f. The original rezoning case did not include a site plan or
elevations, resulting in Stipulation 1 requiring conceptual site plan, elevations and
architectural theme be approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the public
Page 470
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
hearing process and establishing 7 criteria (Stipulations 1.a-1.g) for review. These
criteria included considerations relevant to the potential development of commercial land
uses including but not limited to drive-through design, shaded walkways on commercial
buildings, and commercial parking lot design. However, Stipulation 1.f addresses the
potential for residential land uses to develop in the C-2 zoning district and required
consideration of innovative site design, enhanced setbacks, sound barriers, and
landscaping to mitigate impacts from the proximity of the I-17.
NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS
Public Correspondence
Thirty-two letters of opposition were received regarding this request. Concerns
expressed in the correspondence include the following:
x Increase in traffic along the I-17 frontage road (20 emails);
x The proposed development does not provide adequate amenities and open space
which may contribute to unintended use and degradation of existing amenities in
the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east (16 emails);
x Potential overflow parking along Arroyo Norte Drive (13 emails);
x Development is not consistent or compatible with the character of existing
developments in the surrounding area (10 emails);
x Density is too high and incompatible with existing developments in the surrounding
area (10 emails);
x The proposed name of the development will create confusion by inferring a
connection to the Arroyo Norte subdivision to the east, located in Maricopa County
jurisdiction (8 emails);
x Increase in safety hazards due to emergency vehicles’ inability to access existing
neighborhoods (8 emails);
x Development does not meet the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines (2 emails)
x Lack of an approved Traffic Study (6 emails)
x The development will create negative impacts regarding nearby washes during
rain events (3 emails);
x Increase in fire hazards (3 emails);
x The development will burden existing water infrastructure in the surrounding area
(2 emails);
x Increase in crime rate resulting from lower income housing options (2 emails);
x Public notification sign for the Planning Hearing Officer hearing was not readily
visible (1 email);
x Decrease in property values (1 email).
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
Commercial
Page 471
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
CHARACTER OF SURROUNDING LAND USE
Zoning Land Use
On-site: C-2 Vacant
North: C-2 Vacant
(Across Arroyo Norte Drive)
South: County (R1-6) Single-family residential
East: County (R1-6) Single-family residential
West: C-2 Vacant
VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021
meeting and continued the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting by a vote of 5 to 0. The
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting
and recommended approval by a vote of 4 to 2.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER FINDINGS
The Planning Hearing Officer’s recommendation was based on the following findings:
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with commercial
uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in the original application,
it was unknown at the time how the site would ultimately develop, what specific
uses would be implemented, and the scale and intensity of future development.
Therefore, Stipulation 1 was adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review
through the public hearing process once these became available. However, this
stipulation did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as
permitted in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly
addressed this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on
potential residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit multifamily
complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences. The proposed
density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less than the 17.40 dwelling
units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD development option with bonus
points. The proposed height is less than the two stories and 30 feet permitted in
the R-3 PRD development option. Proposed open space is approximately 1.18
acres or 7.4 percent of the gross site area, which is greater than the minimum 5
percent required. The proposed residences are detached stand-alone units rather
than a traditional multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the
proposal is appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent
with the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and creates
Page 472
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
a buffer between existing single-family development to the east, adjacent
commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the review of the
site plan and elevations. General conformance to the proposed conceptual site
plan and elevations is recommended as discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations regarding
building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. This
stipulation was originally intended to address the potential development of the site
with multiple commercial uses. With the conversion of this stipulation to general
conformance for the proposed residential development, these concerns are not
wholly relevant. However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate
level of consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative window
treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate for a
desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof tiles.
Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco. Accent colors
are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color palette
intended to address concerns raised during public outreach regarding the
compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations submitted with the
request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue, and red accent doors and a
Mediterranean palette. However, the revised elevations were limited to single-
perspective renderings, did not incorporate the new door colors on the revised
palette, and did not include the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the
original submittal. Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that
addresses the use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting
reflective materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette as there
is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are addressed in
the applicant’s submittal as follows:
a) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is located along
Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road, which will allow a
continuous perimeter wall along the west property line. No units front the west
property line and there are private yards located along this area.
Page 473
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
b) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-17
frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between the I-17
and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large parcel, subject to the
stipulations of this case, and an approximately 70-foot wide drainage channel.
c) Sound barriers – A six-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the west
perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does not contain
the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
d) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a variety of
large and medium canopy shade trees along the west property line in open
spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow, oak, and ash. However, the
majority of the west property line consists of private yards and trees are not
depicted. The fact that the subject property does not contain the parcel
adjacent to the I-17 frontage road and the closest unit will be setback
approximately 500 feet from the I-17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced
landscaping standards in this area. The property is subject to existing
Ordinance standards for landscaping in multifamily developments. The
remaining parcel between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this
stipulation and landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for
these plans.
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that were
relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple commercial users.
Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the considerations are reflected in the
conceptual elevations and the recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was relevant to the
assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would develop with multiple
commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant to the development of the site
with a single multifamily development. The applicant’s request to modify this
stipulation is recommended to be approved with a modification to the standard
language to specify that this requirement is only relevant to development
proposals for commercial land uses.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
Page 474
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i) Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii) Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii) Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
Page 475
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
iv) Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as
walls interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and
finished with materials similar to those of the buildings’
architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
5. That 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
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior
to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
Page 476
Staff Report – PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1
June 3, 2021 Planning Commission
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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.
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that this request be approved with a modification and additional
stipulations as recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
EXHIBITS
A – Appeal Documents (2 pages)
B – Applicant’s Narrative (39 pages)
C – Aerial Map (1 page)
D – Zoning Map (1 page)
E – Ordinance G-4948 from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (8 pages)
F – Sketch Map from Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07-1 (1 page)
G – Proposed Site Plan date stamped January 28, 2021 (1 pages)
H – Proposed Elevations date stamped January 28, 2021 (13 pages)
I – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from March 9, 2021 (6 pages)
J – Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Minutes from April 13, 2021 (12 pages)
K – PHO Summary for PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 (11 pages)
L – Public Correspondence (95 pages)
Page 477
(;+,%,7$
Page 478
PLANNING HEARING OFFICER APPEAL
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION/CITY COUNCIL HOLD
A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
CASE NUMBER: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
LOCATION: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
PHO HEARING DATE: 4/21/2021 RECEIVED: 4/28/2021
APPEALED BY: Opposition Applicant
APPEALED TO: PLANNING 6/3/2021 at 6:00 p.m.
COMMISSION TENTATIVE DATE
7/1/2021 at 10:00 a.m.
CITY COUNCIL
TENTATIVE DATE
APPELLANT NAME AND ADDRESS: PHONE:
Richard Zimmerman 602-527-6938
46026 North 35th Avenue
New River, Arizona 85087
RECEIPT NUMBER:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
The development backs street infrastructure. The area lacks Fire/Police
infrastructure. The frontage road is a fatality waiting to happen. This is irresponsible of
C.O.P. to develop this area before the infrastructure is in place to support it.
TAKEN BY: Eric Morales, Planner II
c: Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek
Tricia Gomes
Racelle Escolar
$GDP6WUDQLHUL
Danielle Jordan
5D 'HVKD:LOOLDPV
Victoria Cipolla-Murillo
JuliH*DUFLD
Ben Ernyei - Posting
GIS Team
S:\Planning\Rezoning\Hearings\PHO\Appeals\2021\PHO Appeal Form.doc
Page 479
Page 480
(;+,%,7%
Page 481
LAW OFFICE OF DAVID CISIEWSKI, PLLC
1 1 8 1 1 N o r t h T a t u m B l v d , S u i t e 1 0 5 1 , P h o e n i x , A Z 8 5 0 2 8
Telephone: 602.953.8729 Facsimile: 602.997.9807 Email: dave@dclawaz.com Web: www.dclawaz.com
)HEUXDU\
3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
&LW\RI3KRHQL[
3ODQQLQJ 'HYHORSPHQW'HSDUWPHQW
:HVW:DVKLQJWRQ6WUHHWQG)ORRU
3KRHQL[$UL]RQD
5H $SSOLFDWLRQIRU6DWLVIDFWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQV 5HYLVHG
=RQLQJ&DVH =
3URMHFW±$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWH
'HDU3ODQQLQJ+HDULQJ2IILFHU
7KLV ILUP UHSUHVHQWV )'* $FTXLVLWLRQV //& ³)'*´ WKH GHYHORSHU RI $ULVH $UUR\R
1RUWHDXQLWOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\ WKH³3URMHFW´RU³&RPPXQLW\´ 7KH
3URMHFW LV SURSRVHG WR EH GHYHORSHG XSRQ DQ DSSUR[LPDWHO\ DFUH SRUWLRQ RI D DFUH
SDUFHO 0DULFRSD&RXQW\$VVHVVRU¶V3DUFHO- ORFDWHGHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI
WKH , )URQWDJH 5RDG DQG $UUR\R 1RUWH 'ULYH WKH ³3URSHUW\´ RU ³6LWH´ 7KH UHPDLQLQJ
SRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWFRQWDLQLQJWKH3URSHUW\ WKH³5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO´ DUHQRWSURSRVHGIRU
GHYHORSPHQWDWWKLVWLPH$DHULDOSKRWRRIWKH3URSHUW\DQGWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHODUHSURYLGHG
EHORZ
Page 482
7KH HQWLUHW\ RI WKH 3URSHUW\ DQG WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DUH FXUUHQWO\ YDFDQW DQG
XQGHYHORSHG7KURXJKWKLV$SSOLFDWLRQWKH$SSOLFDQWLVSURSRVLQJWRGHYHORSDXQLWOX[XU\
VLQJOHIDPLO\ UHQWDO FRPPXQLW\ XSRQ WKH 3URSHUW\ 7KH 3URMHFW ZLOO SURYLGH QHZ DQG PRUH
GLYHUVH KRXVLQJ RSWLRQV ZLWKLQ WKLV DUHD RI WKH &LW\ DV D EHQHILW WR WKH RYHUDOO UHVLGHQWLDO
FKDUDFWHURIWKHDUHD
$ %DFNJURXQG
7KH 3URSHUW\ DV ZHOO DV WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZHUH SDUW RI ]RQLQJ FDVH =
³5H]RQLQJ´ ZKLFKZDVDSSURYHGE\WKH3KRHQL[&LW\&RXQFLORQ -XO\DV2UGLQDQFH
1R* $FRS\RIWKH5H]RQLQJLVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV ([KLELW$7KH5H]RQLQJFKDQJHG
WKH ODQG XVH GHVLJQDWLRQV RQ DFUHV IURP & 1HLJKERUKRRG &RPPHUFLDO DQG 5
6LQJOH)DPLO\5HVLGHQFH WR& ,QWHUPHGLDWH&RPPHUFLDO 7KHDUHDVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
LVGHSLFWHGRQWKHPDSEHORZ$WWKHWLPHRIWKH5H]RQLQJWKHUHZDVQRVSHFLILFGHYHORSPHQW
SODQ IRU WKH 3URSHUW\ RU WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DQG WKHUHIRUH VWLSXODWLRQV ZHUH LQFOXGHG WR
DGGUHVV IXWXUH DSSURYDO RI WKH VLWH SODQV DQG HOHYDWLRQV IRU WKH VHSDUDWH SDUFHOV WKDW ZHUH
LQFOXGHGDVSDUWRIWKH5H]RQLQJ$WWKHFXUUHQWWLPHWKHUHLVQRSODQQHGGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKH
5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO DQG WKLV $SSOLFDWLRQ UHODWHV RQO\ WR WKH VDWLVIDFWLRQ RI 5H]RQLQJ VWLSXODWLRQV
IRUWKH3URSHUW\
% 6XUURXQGLQJ8VHV =RQLQJ
7KHH[LVWLQJ]RQLQJDQGODQGXVHVVXUURXQGLQJWKH3URSHUW\DUHDVIROORZVDQGVKRZQDERYHRQ
WKH=RQLQJ0DS
'LUHFWLRQ =RQLQJ 8VH
1RUWK & &LW\RI3KRHQL[ 9DFDQW
(DVW 5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\ 6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $UUR\R1RUWH
6RXWK 5 0DULFRSD&RXQW\ 6LQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDO $QWKHP8QLW
:HVW & &LW\RI3KRHQL[ 9DFDQW
Page 483
& 3URSRVHG5HVLGHQWLDO&RPPXQLW\'HVLJQ
$ULVH$UUR\R1RUWHLVDOX[XU\VLQJOHIDPLO\UHQWDOFRPPXQLW\FHQWHUHGDURXQGDODUJH
FHQWUDO SDUN DQG DPHQLW\ DUHD 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV ZLOO LQFOXGH DQG
EHGURRPXQLWVZLWKSULYDWHHQWULHVDQGJDWHGUHDU\DUGV7KH&RPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHVZLOOLQFOXGH
DSRROFDEDQDVDGRJSDUNDQGRWKHUVPDOOHUSDUNVDQGFRPPRQDUHDVGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDV\DFFHVVWRRSHQVSDFHIRUDOOUHVLGHQWV7KHPDLQHQWU\ZLOOEHDWWKH
QRUWKZHVWFRUQHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLWKDVHFRQGDU\HJUHVVRQO\DFFHVVGULYHDWWKHQRUWKHDVW
FRUQHURIWKH3URSHUW\$FFHVVWRWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVLVSURYLGHGYLDDORRSURDGWKDWWUDYHUVHWKH
&RPPXQLW\WRSURYLGHHDVHYHKLFXODUDFFHVVWRDOOWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVDQGWKHSDUNLQJDUHDV
)XUWKHU3URMHFWVSHFLILFGHWDLOVLQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
8QLW6XPPDU\8QLW
6T)W %HG%DWK RI8QLWV 0L[
3ODQ
3ODQ
3ODQ )/(;
3ODQ
7RWDO
3DUNLQJ6XPPDU\5HTXLUHG3DUNLQJ 3URYLGHG3DUNLQJ
VSDFHVSHUXQLW $VVLJQHGFDUSRUWVSDFHV
$VVLJQHGJDUDJHVSDFHV
8QDVVLJQHGVSDFHV
/HDVLQJ2IILFH
7RWDO
6LWH&RYHUDJH7\SH 6T)W $FUHV 7RWDO
%XLOGLQJ&RYHUDJH
5RDGV 3DUNLQJ
3ULYDWH
'UDLQDJH(DVHPHQW
7RWDO
7KH IROORZLQJ ([KLELWV DUH DWWDFKHG WR WKH $SSOLFDWLRQ WR LOOXVWUDWH WKH SURSRVHG GHYHORSPHQW
GHVLJQHOHPHQWVIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\DQGVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHTXLVLWH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
([KLELW%6LWH3ODQ
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
Page 484
' 7H[WRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQVDQG6DWLVIDFWLRQ5DWLRQDOH
6R DV WR SURYLGH IRU WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI WKH 3URSHUW\ LQ FRQIRUPDQFH ZLWK WKH VWLSXODWLRQV VHW
IRUWK LQ WKH 5H]RQLQJ ³=RQLQJ 6WLSXODWLRQ´ WKH $SSOLFDQW RIIHUV WKH IROORZLQJ UDWLRQDOH LQ
VDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHDSSOLFDEOH=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQV
7KDW FRQFHSWXDO VLWH SODQ V DQG HOHYDWLRQV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG E\ WKH 3ODQQLQJ +HDULQJ
2IILFHU WKURXJK D SXEOLF KHDULQJ SURFHVV SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV 'HSDUWPHQW
SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ DSSURYDO 7KH VLWH SODQ V DQG HOHYDWLRQV VKDOO LQFOXGH WKH
IROORZLQJ
D (OHYDWLRQV ZKLFK SURYLGH DUFKLWHFWXUDO FRQVLVWHQF\ LQ EXLOGLQJ PDVV DQG VW\OH ZDOO
WUHDWPHQWVOLJKWLQJDQGVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ WKH %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV
DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW ' WKH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV DV ZHOO DV WKH RWKHU
VWUXFWXUHV ZLWKLQ WKH &RPPXQLW\ SURYLGH DQ DHVWKHWLFDOO\ SOHDVLQJ DUFKLWHFWXUDO
WKHPH XVLQJ QHXWUDO WRQHV DQG DFFHQW FRORUV 7KH SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJV SURYLGH D
FRKHVLYHDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IHDWXULQJVWXFFRH[WHULRU
ZDOOV FRPSOLPHQWDU\ WLOH URRIV DQG DFFHQW ZLGRZ DQG GRRU WUHDWPHQWV $OO
UHVLGHQWLDOXQLWVZLOOEHVLQJOHVWRU\GHVLJQZLWKDSULYDWHUHDU\DUG
7KH &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH IRU D SHULPHWHU PDVRQU\ ZDOO ZLWK DUFKLWHFWXUDO
HOHPHQWVFRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKHGHVLJQHOHPHQWVUHIOHFWHGRQWKH
%XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV DV GHSLFWHG RQ WKH 'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV
([KLELW)7KH&RPPXQLW\ZLOODOVRLQFOXGLQJOLJKWLQJIL[WXUHVWRSURYLGHIRUVWUHHW
OLJKWLQJSDWKZD\DQGDUHDOLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQWODQGVFDSLQJOLJKWLQJXVLQJXQLIRUP
IL[WXUHVZLWKVXFKIL[WXUHVEHLQJDVGHSLFWHGRQ([KLELW)
E 7KHSULPDU\ILQLVKLQJPDWHULDOVIRUEXLOGLQJVVKDOOFRQVLVWRIQDWXUDOGHVHUWPDWHULDOV
ZKLFKDUHDSSURSULDWHIRUWKHQDWXUDOGHVHUWFRQWH[W
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ WKH 0DWHULDOV &RORU 3ODQ
DWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW(WKHPDWHULDOVSURSRVHGIRUWKH&RPPXQLW\EXLOGLQJV
FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOO LQ D ³6QRZERXQG´ FRORU WKURXJKRXW WKH 3URMHFW
(DFK EXLOGLQJ ZLOO IHDWXUH URRIV LQ D FRPSOLPHQWDU\ ³%DUFHORQD 7HUUD &RWWD´
FRORU SURYLGLQJ DQ DSSHDOLQJ FRQWUDVW RI FRORU DQG WH[WXUH WKURXJKRXW WKH
GHYHORSPHQW )XUWKHUWKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOOIHDWXUHFRORUVWKDWQRW RQO\EOHQG ZHOO
ZLWKWKHVXUURXQGLQJQDWXUDOGHVHUWODQGVFDSHEXWDUHDOVRKLJKO\FRPSDWLEOHZLWK
WKH H[LVWLQJ UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQWV WR WKH LPPHGLDWH HDVW DQG VRXWK RI WKH
3URSHUW\ $GGLWLRQDOO\ SHULPHWHU ZDOOV ZLOO EH FRQVWUXFWHG RI VSOLWIDFHG &08
EORFNZLWKVXSSRUWFROXPQVDQGFDSVWRQHRIDFRPSOLPHQWDU\PDWHULDO
Page 485
F 'ULYHWKUX IDFLOLWLHV VKDOO EH RULHQWHG VR WKDW GULYHWKUX ZLQGRZV DUH QRW GLUHFWO\
YLVLEOHIURPDGMDFHQWSXEOLFVWUHHWV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KLV FRQGLWLRQ LV QRW DSSOLFDEOH WR WKH
SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW EXW ZLOO EH DGGUHVV LQ WKH IXWXUH FRPPHUFLDO
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHUHPDLQLQJSRUWLRQVRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJ
G /DQGVFDSLQJDUFDGHVRURYHUKDQJVZKLFKSURYLGHVKDGHGZDONZD\VVKDOOEHXWLOL]HG
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ :KLOH WKLV 6WLSXODWLRQ LV JHQHUDOO\ PRUH
DSSOLFDEOH WR D FRPPHUFLDO GHYHORSPHQW DV ZDV RULJLQDOO\ FRQWHPSODWHG IRU WKLV
3URSHUW\ WKH SURSRVHG &RPPXQLW\ ZLOO SURYLGH ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WKURXJK WKH
GHYHORSPHQW LQFOXGLQJ D ODUJH FHQWUDOO\ ORFDWHG SDUN IRU WKH HQMR\PHQW RI DOO
UHVLGHQWV$VGHSLFWHGRQWKH/DQGVFDSH3ODQVDWWDFKHGKHUHWRDV([KLELW&7UHHV
DQG VKUXEV DUH ZHOO GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH ERWK H\H
DSSHDOLQJ FRPPRQ DUHDV VKDGH DGMDFHQW WR YHKLFXODU SDUNLQJ DUHDV DV ZHOO DV
VKDGHDORQJWKHSDWKVFRQQHFWLQJWKHUHVLGHQWLDOXQLWV
H 7KDW SDUNLQJ DUHDV VKDOO EH GHVLJQHG ZLWK ODQGVFDSHG DUHDV WR EUHDN XS WKH ODUJH
H[SDQVHRISDUNLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH &RPPXQLW\ SDUNLQJ DUHDV DV
LOOXVWUDWHGRQWKHDWWDFKHG6LWH3ODQ ([KLELW% DQG/DQGVFDSH3ODQV ([KLELW&
DUH GLVEXUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH &RPPXQLW\ WR SURYLGH HDV\ DFFHVV WR WKH UHVLGHQWV
EHWZHHQWKHOLYLQJXQLWVWKHSDUNLQJDUHDVDQGFRPPXQLW\DPHQLWLHV$VGHVLJQHG
WKH &RPPXQLW\ GRHV QRW SURYLGH DQ\ ODUJH H[SDQVLYH SDUNLQJ ILHOGV EXW UDWKHU
VPDOOHUDUHDVRIFDUSRUWFRYHUHGSDUNLQJSULYDWHJDUDJHVDQGRWKHUSDUNLQJDUHDV
WR VHUYLFH WKH QHHGV RI WKH UHVLGHQWV $GGLWLRQDOO\ ODQGVFDSLQJ KDV EHHQ ORFDWHG
DGMDFHQWWRSDUNLQJDUHDVWRSURYLGHERWKVKDGHDQGYLVXDODSSHDOWKURXJKRXWWKH
&RPPXQLW\
I 6SHFLDO FRQVLGHUDWLRQ VKDOO EH JLYHQ WR VLWH GHVLJQ IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV DGHTXDWHO\
PLWLJDWH WKH LPSDFWV RI WKH SUR[LPLW\ WR ,QWHUVWDWH VXFK LQQRYDWLYH VLWH GHVLJQ
LQFUHDVHGVHWEDFNVVRXQGEDUULHUVDQGLQFUHDVHGODQGVFDSLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO &RPPXQLW\ KDV
EHHQORFDWHGLQWKHIDUHDVWHUQSRUWLRQRIWKHODUJHUWUDFWVXEMHFWWRWKH5H]RQLQJVR
DV WR SURYLGH WKH PD[LPXP GLVWDQFH EXIIHU EHWZHHQ WKH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQFHV DQG
,QWHUVWDWH $V LOOXVWUDWHG RQ WKH 6LWH 3ODQ DWWDFKHG KHUHWR DV ([KLELW % WKH
GLVWDQFHIURPWKHFORVHVWSURSRVHGUHVLGHQFHWRWKH,QWHUVWDWHLVLQH[FHVVRI
IHHW$GGLWLRQDOO\WKHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\LVVHSDUDWHGIURPWKH,QWHUVWDWHE\WKH
ZHVWHUQSHULPHWHUZDOORIWKH&RPPXQLW\DQDSSUR[LPDWHO\IRRWZLGHGUDLQDJH
FKDQQHODQGDODUJHWUDFWRIODQGZKLFKPD\EHGHYHORSHGLQWKHIXWXUHZLWKXVHV
DOORZHG XQGHU WKH 5H]RQLQJ 7KH QDWXUDO DQG PDQPDGH EXIIHUV DORQJ ZLWK D
VXEVWDQWLDOVHSDUDWLRQGLVWDQFHZLOOSURYLGHPRUHWKDQDGHTXDWHEXIIHULQJRIQRLVH
DQGRWKHULPSDFWVJHQHUDWHGIURP,QWHUVWDWH
Page 486
J $Q DUFKLWHFWXUDO SODQ VKDOO EH DSSURYHG ZLWK WKH HOHYDWLRQV 7KH DUFKLWHFWXUDO SODQ
VKDOO FRQYH\ D VHQVH RI FRQWLQXLW\ WKURXJKRXW WKH GHYHORSPHQW DQG DW D PLQLPXP
LQFOXGHWKHIROORZLQJ
L 1DWXUDO DFFHQW PDWHULDOV VXFK DV EULFN VWRQH RU WLOH IRU EXLOGLQJV DQG
VLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $VVKRZQRQWKHDWWDFKHG0DWHULDOV
DQG &RORU 3ODQ ([KLELW ( DQG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW ' WKH
SURSRVHG EXLOGLQJ PDWHULDOV FRQVLVW RI H[WHULRU VWXFFR ZDOOV DQG WLOH
URRIV'HVHUWWRQHFRORUVDUHSURYLGHGWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
DFFHQW FRORUV EHLQJ XVHG RQ WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLW GRRUV DQG ZLQGRZ
FRUQLFHVIRUDSSHDO
LL $UFKLWHFWXUDO GHWDLOLQJ VXFK DV UHFHVVHV SRS RXWV VKDGH ZDOOV SDUDSHWV
DUWLVWLFLQVHWVRUSLODVWHUV
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KH SURSRVHG UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV DV
VKRZQ RQ WKH DWWDFKHG %XLOGLQJ (OHYDWLRQV ([KLELW & SURYLGH IRU
UHFHVVHG HQWULHVZLQGRZFRUQLFHVDQGURRIOLQHDFFHQWV WR HQKDQFHWKH
DUFKLWHFWXUDOFKDUDFWHURIWKH&RPPXQLW\
LLL 6WUHHW DSSXUWHQDQFHV VXFK DV EHQFKHV VHDWZDOOV UDPDGDV VKDGH
VWUXFWXUHVWUDVKHQFORVXUHVOLJKWLQJDQGZD\ILQGLQJVLJQDJH
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHG&RPPXQLW\IHDWXUHVD
ZHOOGHVLJQHG VWUHHWVFDSH DORQJ WKH ORRS URDG SURYLGLQJ DFFHVV WR WKH
HQWLUH &RPPXQLW\ /RFDWHG DORQJ WKLV SULYDWH VWUHHW LV DPSOH SDUNLQJ
ERWKFRYHUHGDQGRSHQIRUWKHXVHDQGEHQHILWRIWKHUHVLGHQWV7UDVK
HQFORVXUHVDUHGLVEXUVHGWKURXJKRXWWKH&RPPXQLW\IRUHDV\DFFHVVE\
WKH UHVLGHQWV DQG HDVH RI UHIXVH FROOHFWLRQ &RQQHFWLYH ZDONZD\V DQG
ODQGVFDSLQJ DUH SURYLGHG DORQJ WKH VWUHHW WR SURYLGH GLUHFW DQG HDV\
DFFHVV IRU WKH UHVLGHQWV IURP WKH UHVLGHQWLDO XQLWV WR WKH SDUNLQJ
IDFLOLWLHV DV ZHOO DV WKH FRPPXQLW\ DPHQLWLHV DQG SDUNV ORFDWHG
WKURXJKRXW WKHGHYHORSPHQW 6WUHHW OLJKWLQJDQGDFFHQW OLJKWVDUHDOVR
SURYLGHWKURXJKRXWWKHGHYHORSPHQWIRUWKHVDIHW\DQGDHVWKHWLFDSSHDO
WRWKHUHVLGHQWV
LY 'HWDLOVHFWLRQVIRUVFUHHQLQJDQGSHULPHWHUZDOOVDVZHOODVZDOOVLQWHULRU
WRWKHVLWH VDLGZDOOVVKDOOEHGHVLJQHGDQGILQLVKHGZLWKPDWHULDOVVLPLODU
WRWKRVHRIWKHEXLOGLQJV¶DUFKLWHFWXUDOGHWDLOLQJ
6DWLVIDFWLRQRI=RQLQJ6WLSXODWLRQ $V VKRZQ RQ 'HVLJQ 'HWDLOV
LQFOXGHGDV ([KLELW )WKH&RPPXQLW\ZLOO SURYLGHIRUDSHULPHWHUZDOO
DORQJ WKH HQWLUH SHULPHWHU RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW 7KH SHULPHWHU ZDOO ZLOO
IHDWXUHVSOLWIDFHGEORFNPDVRQU\FRQVWUXFWLRQZLWKDUFKLWHFWXUDODFFHQWV
FRQVLVWHQWZLWKDQGFRPSOLPHQWDU\WRWKH%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQVWRSURYLGH
IRU DQ RYHUDOO FRQVLVWHQW DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH $GGLWLRQDOO\ WKURXJKRXW
Page 487
WKH &RPPXQLW\ YLHZ IHQFLQJ ZLOO EH SURYLGHG ZLWK VXFK YLHZ IHQFLQJ
IHDWXULQJDFRQVLVWHQWDUFKLWHFWXUDOGHVLJQIRUWKHVXSSRUWLQJFROXPQV
7KDW D FRPSUHKHQVLYH VLJQ SODQ IRU WKH HQWLUH SURSHUW\ H[FOXGLQJ WKDW SRUWLRQ EHLQJ
GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV VKDOO EH DSSURYHG E\ WKH =RQLQJ $GPLQLVWUDWRU LQ
DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 6HFWLRQ RI WKH =RQLQJ 2UGLQDQFH SULRU WR 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQWILQDOVLWHSODQDSSURYDOIRUWKHILUVWSKDVHRIGHYHORSPHQW
5DWLRQDOHIRU0RGLILFDWLRQRI6WLSXODWLRQ 7KHSURSRVHGUHVLGHQWLDOGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH
3URSHUW\ LV EHLQJ SURFHVVHG DV D VHSDUDWH DQG GLVFUHWH UHVLGHQWLDO GHYHORSPHQW QRW
RWKHUZLVHFRQQHFWHGWRWKHODWHUGHYHORSPHQWRIWKH5HPDLQLQJ3DUFHO$WWKLVWLPHLW
LV XQFOHDU KRZ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH GHYHORSHG DQG VLJQDJH IRU DQ\ IXWXUH
GHYHORSPHQW XSRQ WKH 5HPDLQLQJ 3DUFHO ZLOO EH PRUH IXOO\ GHILQHG WKURXJK WKH
VXEVHTXHQWHQWLWOHPHQWDQGUHYLHZSURFHVVHV$GGLWLRQDOO\WKH6WLSXODWLRQUHJDUGLQJD
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQLV PRUHDSSURSULDWHO\UHODWHGWRWKHSUHYLRXVO\FRQWHPSODWHG
GHYHORSPHQWRIWKHHQWLUHWUDFWDVDQLQWHJUDWHGFRPPHUFLDOGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKLVQRW
WKHFXUUHQWGHYHORSPHQWSODQ7KHUHIRUHWKH$SSOLFDQWUHTXHVWWKDWWKLV6WLSXODWLRQEH
PRGLILHG WR H[FOXGH WKH 3URSHUW\ EHLQJ GHYHORSHG IRU UHVLGHQWLDO XVHV IURP DQ\
FRPSUHKHQVLYHVLJQSODQ
7KDW IHHW RI ULJKWRIZD\ VKDOO EH GHGLFDWHG IRU WKH VRXWK KDOI RI 7HUHVD /DQH RU DV
RWKHUZLVHDSSURYHGE\WKH'HYHORSPHQW6HUYLFHV'HSDUWPHQW
7KDW DGGLWLRQDO ULJKWRIZD\ VKDOO EH GHGLFDWHG IRU WKH IXWXUH H[SDQVLRQ RI WKH
IUHHZD\IURQWDJHURDGDVDSSURYHGE\WKH6WUHHW7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ'HSDUWPHQW
7KDWWKH'HYHORSHUVKDOOFRQVWUXFWDOOVWUHHWVZLWKLQDQGDGMDFHQWWRWKHGHYHORSPHQWZLWK
SDYLQJFXUEJXWWHUVLGHZDONFXUEUDPSVVWUHHWOLJKWVPHGLDQLVODQGVODQGVFDSLQJDQG
RWKHU LQFLGHQWDOV DV SHU WKH SODQV DSSURYHG RU PRGLILHG E\ WKH 6WUHHW 7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ
'HSDUWPHQW
7KDW WKH DSSOLFDQW VKDOO VXEPLW DQ DUFKDHRORJLFDO VXUYH\ UHSRUW RI WKH GHYHORSPHQW DUH
IRU UHYLHZ DQG DSSURYDO E\ WKH &LW\ $UFKDHRORJLVW SULRU WR FOHDULQJ DQG JUXEELQJ
ODQGVFDSLQJ VDOYDJH DQGRU JUDGLQJ )XUWKHU DUFKDHRORJLFDO PRQLWRULQJ DQGRU WHVWLQJ
WUHQFKLQJ PD\EHQHFHVVDU\EDVHGRQWKHUHVXOWVRIWKHVXUYH\
7KDW WKH IROORZLQJ SHUVRQV RUJDQL]DWLRQV DQG DVVRFLDWLRQV VKDOO EH QRWLILHG E\ WKH
DSSOLFDQW DW OHDVW GD\V EHIRUH WKH PHHWLQJ RU KHDULQJ RI DQ\ 'HYHORSPHQW 6HUYLFHV
'HSDUWPHQW SUHOLPLQDU\ VLWH SODQ PHHWLQJV =RQLQJ $GMXVWPHQW KHDULQJV RU 3ODQQLQJ
+HDULQJ2IILFHUKHDULQJV
D 1HZ5LYHU'HVHUW+LOOV&RPPXQLW\$VVRFLDWLRQ,QF
(&DUHIUHH+LJKZD\
3KRHQL[$=
E 6KDUHHQ*RRGURDG
VFJRRGURDG#PVQFRP
Page 488
F 7HUU\0DUURQ
WPDUURQ#\DKRRFRP
( &RQFOXVLRQ
%DVHG XSRQ WKH SURSRVHG GHVLJQ DQG GHYHORSPHQW HOHPHQWV RI WKH &RPPXQLW\ WKH
XQLIRUP DQG FRPSDWLEOH DUFKLWHFWXUDO WKHPH DQG QDWXUH RI WKH SURSRVHG PXOWLIDPLO\
GHYHORSPHQWXSRQWKH3URSHUW\WKH&RPPXQLW\KDVEHHQGHVLJQHGLQVDWLVIDFWLRQRIWKHUHOHYDQW
6WLSXODWLRQVVHWIRUWKLQWKH5H]RQLQJ
Page 489
([KLELW$5H]RQLQJ
Page 490
Page 491
Page 492
Page 493
Page 494
Page 495
Page 496
Page 497
Page 498
([KLELW%±6LWH3ODQ
Page 499
Page 500
([KLELW&/DQGVFDSH3ODQV
Page 501
$
$
+(50$11 '(6,*1 *5283
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
:2/)5'
68,7(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$=/,&
Page 502
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+
)$;
([KLELW'%XLOGLQJ(OHYDWLRQV
Page 503
Page 504
$552<21257(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ
9RQ.DUPDQ$YHQXH6XLWH
,UYLQH&$
NWJ\FRP
)$0,/<'(9(/230(17)5(':$5,1*'5,9(
3$/0'(6(57&$
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 505
/()7 )5217
Page 506
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 507
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
:+ :'
.,7&+(1 3$175<
[
325&+
&2$76
6725$*(
*5($7
5220 %('5220
[ [
%$7+
Page 508
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 509
/()7 )5217
Page 510
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 511
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
325&+
:+ :'
%$7+
.,7&+(1
[
:,&
&2$76
6725$*(
)/(; *5($7
[
%('5220 [
[
Page 512
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
ƌŝƐĞŽŶƌƌŽLJŽEŽƌƚĞ
WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚƵŝůĚŝŶŐ ůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶƐ
Page 513
/()7 )5217
Page 514
5,*+7 5($5
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 515
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
325&+
:,&
.,7&+(1 :'
[ 6(&1'5<
%$7+
:+
35,0$5<
%$7+
&2$76
6725$*(
*5($7
35,0$5< 5220 6(&21'$5<
%('5220 [ %('5220
[ [
Page 516
3$7,2
6&$/(
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )$0,/<'(9(/230(17
)5(':$5,1*'5,9( $5,6($552<21257(
NWJ\FRP 3$/0'(6(57&$ 3+2(1,;$=
([KLELW(0DWHULDOV &RORUV3ODQ
Page 517
3/ $1 3/ $ 1 3 / $1
6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '< 6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '< 6 7 8 & & 2 % 2 '<
6 : 6 1 2: % 281 ' 6 : 6 1 2:%2 8 1 ' 6 : 6 1 2: % 28 1 '
$ & & ( 1 7 & $ 5 3 2 57 6 * $ 5 $ * ( ' 2 2 5 6 $ & & ( 1 7 & $ 5 3 2 57 6 * $ 5 $ * ( ' 2 2 5 6 $&&( 1 7 &$532576 * $5$* ( ' 2256
6 : , 1 7 ( / / (& 7 8 $ / * 5 $< 6 : , 1 7 (/ / (&7 8 $/ * 5 $< 6 : , 1 7( //( &78 $/* 5$<
Page 518
) 52 1 7 ' 22 56 )5 2 1 7 ' 2 2 5 6 )521 7' 2256
6 : 5 $9 ( 5( ' 6 : * 2 / ' &5 (6 7 6 : * ( 25* , $1 % $<
52 2) , 1 * 5 2 2 ), 1 * 522), 1 *
%2 5$ / %$ 5 & (/ 2 1 $ 7 ( 55 $ & 27 7$ ) / $ 6+ ( ' %2 5 $/ %$5 &(/ 2 1 $7 (5 5 $&27 7$)/ $6 + (' % 25$/ % $5&( /21 $7( 55$&277$)/$6 + ( '
)DPLO\'HYHORSPHQW
$UFKLWHFWXUH3ODQQLQJ )UHG:DULQJ'ULYH
3DOP'HVHUW&$ $5,6($552<21257( -$18$5<
NWJ\FRP 3+2(1,;$= &2/25 0 $7 ( 5 , $ / % 2 $ 5 '
ZZZIDPLO\GHYHORSPHQWKRPHVFRP
([KLELW)'HVLJQ'HWDLOV
Page 519
+(50$11 '(6,*1 *5283
$5,6($552<21257(
3+2(1,;$=
:2/)5'
68,7(
3$/0'(6(57&$
$=/,&
Page 520
)'*$&48,6,7,216//&
3+
)$;
(;+,%,7&
Page 521
N HUDSON TL
W ARROYO NORTE DR
W LAPENA DR
N RALEIGH WAY
W ARACELY DR
YON AC
HE M S B NO HE M NB NO
N BLACK CA
N BLACK CAN N I17@ANT N I17@ANT N HUDSON TRL
Page 522
NYON HW Y W BINGHAM DR
W OLD WEST TL
E NLY WAY
HE AV
N
W PLYM OUTH DR Maricopa County Assessor's Office
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
(;+,%,7'
Page 523
C-2* N HUDSON TL
W ARROYO NORTE DR
W LAPENA DR
N RALEIGH WAY
C-2*
W ARACELY DR
YON AC
HE M S B NO HE M NB NO
N BLACK CA
N BLACK CAN N I17@ANT N I17@ANT N HUDSON TRL
Page 524
NYON HW Y W BINGHAM DR
W OLD WEST TL
E NLY WAY
HE AV
N
C-2 W PLYM OUTH DR
PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1 Property Location: $SSUR[LPDWHO\IHHWHDVWRIWKHVRXWKHDVWFRUQHURI,DQG
$UUR\R1RUWH'ULYH
Planning & Development Department 0 120 240 480 Feet
´
(;+,%,7(
Page 525
Page 526
Page 527
Page 528
Page 529
Page 530
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
(;+,%,7)
Page 534
TERESA LN
MARICOPA MARICOPA
YO
BLACK CAN
N AC
$
c
"
! (39TH AVE)
COUNTY
OLD WEST TRAIL
Phoenix City Limits
APP
S-1
Z-160-05
Z-48-07
NORTH
400 200 0 400 Feet IV
RD
!
"
c
$!!
ER
R WY I-17
W
NE PK
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING DEPARTMENT PE
AK DESERT HILLS DR
NEW VILLAGE VILLAGE PYRA
MID
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
CITY OF PHOENIX PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: C-1, (20.93 ac) Pending
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
04-19-2007 R1-8 , (25.73 ac) Pending
Z-48-07 06-11-2007
REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO &
QUARTER SEC. NO.
ZONING MAP TO:
C-2, (46.66 ac)
46.66 Acres Q70-19 U6
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-1 / R1-8 303 / 103 364 / 133
C-2 676 812
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Page 535_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2007\Z-48-07.mxd) 6/11/2007
(N:\IS
(;+,%,7*
Page 536
Page 537
(;+,%,7+
Page 538
Page 539
A R R O Y O N O R T E
Architecture + Planning
17911 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92614
949.851.2133
ktgy.com
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CA 92260
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 540
/()7 )5217
Page 541
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 542
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
34'-0"
27'-9" 6'-3"
WH W/D
KITCHEN PANTRY 8'-2"
13'-4" x 8'-4"
PORCH
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-0"
GREAT
14'-10"
ROOM BEDROOM
13'-1" x 14'-1" 11'-0" x 11'-11"
BATH
Page 543
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 544
/()7 )5217
Page 545
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 546
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
35'-0"
14'-11" 9'-5" 10'-8"
PORCH
WH W/D
BATH
KITCHEN 10'-3"
12'-6" x 10'-1"
W.I.C.
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-0"
FLEX GREAT
9'-4" x 11'-0"
ROOM
BEDROOM 13'-7" x 12'-4" 12'-9"
10'-10" x 11'-2"
Page 547
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
Arise on Arroyo Norte
Proposed Building Elevations
Page 548
/()7 )5217
Page 549
5,*+7 5($5
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
5,*+73(563(&7,9( )52173(563(&7,9(
Page 550
/()73(563(&7,9( 5($53(563(&7,9(
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
40'-0"
24'-7" 15'-5"
PORCH
W.I.C.
KITCHEN W/D
12'-4" x 10'-1" SECNDRY
BATH
WH
PRIMARY
BATH
COATS/
STORAGE
23'-10"
GREAT
PRIMARY ROOM SECONDARY
BEDROOM 13'-6" x 12'-4" BEDROOM
12'-10" x 12'-4" 9'-11" x 10'-0"
Page 551
PATIO
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
Architecture + Planning FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
888.456.5849 73-081 FRED WARING DRIVE ARISE ARROYO NORTE 0 2 4 8
ktgy.com PALM DESERT, CA 92260 PHOENIX, AZ # 2020-1071
(;+,%,7,
Page 552
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
March 9, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair Samantha Keating
Will Holton Julianna Pierre
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:09 p.m. with a quorum of five members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the February 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for approval of conceptual site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1; modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan; and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on March 17, 2021.
10 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Samantha Keating provided information regarding the location of the site and
the surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no finalized plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170 unit, single-
family rental community with open space areas, gated rear yards, and main
access at the northwest corner. She clarified that the proposed use is permitted
Page 553
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
in the C-2 zoning district.
Samantha Keating clarified that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan. She stated that the comprehensive sign plan was
originally intended for the entire area of Rezoning Case No. z-48-07, but the
applicant is requesting the stipulation be modified to exclude the site being
developed for residential uses.
Samantha Keating added that there is a request of technical corrections for
Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that the current PHO request was not a rezoning request. He added that
the current zoning permits the proposed use and was only going through the
PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification. He added
that the proposed use in 2007 was primarily commercial retail, but development
never occurred.
David Cisiewski stated that the proposed development consists of 170 detached
residences in a gated community with private backyards and various amenities.
He noted that uncovered, covered, and garage parking is dispersed throughout
the site for both residents and guests. He added that care was taken to provide
buffers from the frontage roads and nearby Interstate-17. He noted that in
addition to a wall along the perimeter of the wall, there is a 40-foot powerline
easement of open desert between the proposed development and the existing
homes to the east. He added that elevations have architectural consistency in
building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. He stated that
the primary finishing materials would be desert materials with natural accents.
Judy Lorch asked what the average square footage of the units would be.
David Cisiewski stated that the unit size would vary from 650 to 900 square
feet, depending on the floor plan.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification regarding the orientation of units on the east
side of the proposed development. David Cisiewski clarified that the homes on
the east side of the development would be oriented with their rear yards adjacent
to the powerline easement.
Loyd Nygaard asked about the estimated rent of the units. David Cisiewski
stated that the estimated rent would be between $1,400 to $1,800. Loyd
Nygaard also asked for clarification regarding jurisdiction of the proposed
development and the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. David Cisiewski stated
that the proposed development is subject to Phoenix jurisdiction and the adjacent
subdivision is part of Maricopa County.
Page 554
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Will Holton asked about maneuvering through the site, specifically the
southernmost portion of the development. He expressed concern regarding the
ability of emergency vehicles to navigate through the site. David Cisiewski
stated that the north-south roadways throughout the development are 35 feet in
width, except at the southernmost portion where the roadways are 25 feet in
width. He stated that he worked with the City’s Development division to
determine that the development meets the necessary turning radii for emergency
vehicles.
Loyd Nygaard asked if the developer would be able to monitor whether
residents were using county amenities. David Cisiewski stated that there would
be no way monitor those uses, but the intent is for residents to use the
development’s on-site amenities.
Ozzie Virgil asked if a traffic study was done and how the development would
add traffic to the area. David Cisiewski stated that the Street Transportation
Department and Traffic Engineering reviewers did not request a Traffic Study to
be completed. Will Holton asked why a Traffic Study was not required.
Samantha Keating stated that developments have to meet a certain threshold
regarding the number of units and trips to determine whether a Traffic Study is
necessary. She added that this particular development did not meet that
threshold and thus a Traffic Study was not requested. Ozzie Virgil emphasized
that traffic will be an issue and should have been addressed by the City. He
recommended that the developer consider increasing lot size and decreasing
density. David Cisiewski stated that he will continue to work with the Street
Transportation Department regarding traffic concerns.
Loyd Nygarrd asked about fire, police, and utilities. David Cisiewski stated that
he did not receive comments from Phoenix Police and Fire reviewers had no
comments. He added that EPCOR will provide water and sewer to the
development.
Will Holton asked about water flow and flooding. David Cisiewski stated that
there is not a final drainage study, but water does flow north to south and there is
a drainage channel along the western boundary of the development and will be
retained as part of the development.
Andrew Brand, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic and congestion. He stated that
having a proposed gated community adjacent to the existing ungated community
will encourage the new residents to use adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision. He
suggested that the developer incorporate fewer rentals and larger park spaces
and remove the gated aspect of the community. He also expressed concerns
about not receiving notifications.
Tyler Estes, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He expressed concerns regarding
Page 555
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
density and use of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision amenities. He also
noted that the developer is not looking out for residents considering EPCOR’s
poor reputation handling water services.
Robert Careway, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding density of the site. He emphasized that the
development is too far north to receive fire and police services from the City of
Phoenix. He stated that those services will have to come from Maricopa County.
Ryan Gregor, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
stated that the development is too dense for the area. He stated that this type of
development will devalue homes. He emphasized that fire services will end up
coming from Maricopa County.
Sean Gates, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns regarding increased traffic. He added that since the
development does not have adequate park space, they will end up using the
amenities of the adjacent subdivision.
Tod Flaming, a member of the public speaking in opposition to the request,
expressed concerns about increased traffic. He stated that the infrastructure in
the area needs to be expanded to accommodate new development. He added
that the proposed development does not have adequate parking to
accommodate the number of residents.
Chad Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns regarding
increased traffic and the site’s poor parking design. He also stated that he did
not receive notifications and City’s sign was not visible on the property.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was informed
the only type of development that would be built behind his home was
commercial retail. He expressed concerns about traffic and density.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he was the
Executive Director of the Anthem Community Council. He encouraged the City
to communicate with the Maricopa County Department of Transportation
(MCDOT) regarding traffic. He stated that the design and density of the
community is a concern. He suggested that the developer rethink the proposal
and return to the Village Planning Committee at a later time.
Kiran Patel, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns about
density. He was assured that the area would remain an open, desert-like
community and the proposed use does not complement the existing adjacent
communities.
David Cisiewski emphasized that this is not a rezoning case and the use is
permitted in the zoning district and may have less impact than high intensity
Page 556
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
retail. He noted that the site would not be a traditional single-family development
with a target demographic of millennials and “empty nesters”. He stated that the
development is providing more open space than is required by the Zoning
Ordinance and the individual rear yards for each property should be considered.
He added that the development would be professionally managed with onsite
maintenance and leasing. He also clarified that the development is proposing
more parking than would be required by the Ordinance.
Will Holton stated that the proposed development does not fit the long range
plans for Rio Vista. He stated that developers should want to preserve the desert
look. He expressed concerns about the proposed homes being in such close
proximity. He stated that if a fire started, it would easily spread throughout the
development.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked who maintained the roads adjacent to
the subject site. Samantha Keating clarified that the road directly to the north of
the property was under the City of Phoenix’s jurisdiction and as you move east or
west the roads are under Maricopa County’s jurisdiction.
Ozzie Virgil stated that the developer should be required to complete a Traffic
Study. David Cisiewski stated that he will work with City Staff, MCDOT, and
Arizona Department of Transit regarding traffic issues. Ozzie Virgil also
suggested a continuance to continue working with the neighbors. David
Cisiewski stated that he was amenable to a continuance to resolve traffic issues
and address concerns of the community.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to continue the request to the April 13,
2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee Meeting. The motion was seconded
by Judy Lorch.
VOTE: 5-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Holton, Lorch, Nygaard,
and Virgil in favor.
4. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
5. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
6. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Will Holton asked staff to look into the new hospital being north of Anthem and
whether it would impact the Rio Vista Village.
Page 557
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – March 9, 2021
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff to provide updates regarding
PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 and any future community meetings that the applicant
plans to host.
7. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Page 558
(;+,%,7-
Page 559
RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE
MINUTES
April 13, 2021
Meeting was held electronically via a video conferencing platform
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT STAFF PRESENT
Massimo Sommacampagna, Chair Samantha Keating
Steven Scharboneau, Vice Chair Julianna Pierre
Will Holton
Judy Lorch
Loyd Nygaard
Ozzie Virgil
1. Call to order, introductions and announcements by Chair.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna called the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. with a quorum of six members present
(four members required for a quorum).
2. Review and approval of the March 9, 2021 Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
meeting minutes.
MOTION: Loyd Nygaard made a motion to approve the minutes as written. The
motion was seconded by Steve Scharboneau.
VOTE: 6-0 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Scharboneau, Holton,
Lorch, Nygaard, and Virgil in favor.
3. PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte
Drive. Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the
Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1, modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan, and technical corrections to Stipulations
3 and 7.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
2 persons in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She stated that the site is a portion of the property from
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-07. She noted that there were no specific plans in
2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 170-unit, single-
Page 560
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
family rental community with multiple open space areas, gated rear yards, and
main access at the northwest corner.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan, and that there is a request of technical corrections
for Stipulations 3 and 7 to correct the department names.
David Cisiewski, representing Family Development and FDG Acquisitions,
clarified that this case is not a request to change the zoning of the property. He
added that the current request was focused on bringing forward a site plan and
conceptual elevations for review and approval. He reiterated that the proposed
development is a permitted use in the zoning district and complies with the
Ordinance’s development standards. He stated that the proposed development
will consist of 170 detached residences in a gated community with private rear
yards and various amenities.
David Cisiewski stated that after the continuance, a neighborhood meeting was
held on March 31, 2021. He gave a general summary of the community
comments and concerns, including the name of the development, density,
residential design and colors, compatibility, parking, parks and amenities, traffic,
and site access.
David Cisiewski stated that in response to the community, the name of the
development was changed from Arise Arroyo Norte to Arise North Phoenix. He
noted that the provided density of the development is 12.2 dwelling units per
acre, which is much less than the density permitted in C-2. He stated the
proposed development was residential in design with one to two-bedroom units
and the color scheme was revised to a desert color palette, making it more
compatible with the area. He added that the development would have ample
amenities, parking and open space.
David Cisiewski clarified that neither the City nor Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) required the developer to complete a Traffic Impact
Study. He stated that based on the concerns of the community, CivTech, a
consulting firm specializing in traffic engineering and design, was hired to
complete a Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). He stated that the TIS concluded that
the proposed development would generate almost 4,000 fewer daily trips than a
commercial shopping center and that the projected traffic volume from the
development would not trigger road widenings or signalization of intersections.
David Cisiewski explained how the revised elevations consist of natural desert
materials which are appropriate for the natural desert context. He explained how
the landscaping, trails, and design allows for discrete, clustered parking areas.
He added that care was taken to provide buffers from the frontage roads and
nearby Interstate-17 (I-17). He added that elevations have architectural
consistency in building mass and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
Page 561
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
David Cisiewski also stated that the developer has taken the Rio Vista Design
Guidelines into account. He stated that the development meets specific
guidelines, citing preservation of existing washes, minimum twenty percent open
space and five percent active open space, desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, and decorative
walls.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification between the community open space
and total open space. David Cisiewski stated that the community open space is
inclusive of the central park, dog park, and other parks interspersed in the
development, which is approximately 7.5% of the site. However, when inclusive
of each unit’s backyard, the total open space accounts for about 50% of the site.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification regarding the two points of access
to the property. David Cisiewski stated that there is the primary access point at
the northwest corner will be for residents and the secondary access point at the
northeast corned will be gated with access for emergency service vehicles.
Steven Scharboneau stated that Stipulation 1 indicated that the architecture
should include natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage. He asked if there was any intention to add brick or stone to the
elevations. David Cisiewski stated that there are tile roofs, tile accents over the
door, and stucco exteriors. He added that brick would be incorporated into the
entry features. He stated that the intention was not to have stone or brick on
each individual unit. Vincent Barbato, owner of Family Development, added
that the elevations have a Mediterranean design with points of articulation, such
as flared treatments, window brows, recessed windows, and recessed accents.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the applicant’s request
concerning Stipulation 2, regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
David Cisiewski stated that the comprehensive sign plan was intended for a
larger commercial center with multiple pads and tenants with individual signs. He
stated that the proposed rental community would only have a small sign at the
entrance and a comprehensive sign plan would not be necessary. Steven
Scharboneau asked if there were any sign plans, and if not, could the applicant
provide a description of the intended signage. Vincent Barbato stated that the
main entry would have a professionally designed entry monument sign with the
development name. He clarified that this would be the only seen by the public,
outside of the community. Steven Scharboneau asked about the height of the
entry sign. Vincent Barbato stated that the sign would be built into a six-foot
wall, so it would be less than six feet in height.
Will Holton asked about the drainage on the site. He asked if the water would
drain away from the existing homes. Dave Cisiewski stated that the site would
retain on site water and any water draining away from the site would move north
to south in a southwesterly direction, away from the existing homes.
Page 562
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Will Holton asked if the development would have a community mailbox area or
individual mailboxes. Vincent Barbato stated that the mailboxes would be
located in leasing office building, along with a package room.
Ozzie Virgil asked for clarification about utilities. He asked if the units would be
set up in a way where units could be individually sold. David Cisiewski stated
that there would be central water and utility lines that would serve the entire
community, which would not allow for them to be individually metered. Vincent
Barbato added that homes have not been individually platted and would not be
sold individually.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the developer considered decreasing the number of units,
since traffic has been a major concern with the community. David Cisiewski
stated that they originally proposed more units, but eventually decreased the unit
number to 170, which allows for a good combination of density, parking, and
open space. Vincent Barbato stated that the development is proposing much
lower density than is permitted in the C-2 zoning district. He added that their use
will provide the lowest amount of traffic, but the 170 units is necessary for a
viable community. Ozzie Virgil stated that they are trying to focus on providing a
balance in the Village between larger lots and homes with higher density
projects.
Will Holton asked for clarification of a “viable community”. David Cisiewski
explained that the intent was to convey that the 170 units, open space provided,
and dispersed parking will make the development a positive living environment
for the tenants.
Loyd Nygaard asked for clarification regarding the PHO Hearing. David
Cisiewski stated that they filed a written request for a continuance to the April
21, 2021 PHO hearing. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was pleased that the
applicant took the time to address the comments and concerns of the Village
Planning Committee (VPC), but still had concerns about traffic, specifically at the
intersection of Anthem Way and Navigation Way and the intersection of the I-17
frontage road and Arroyo Norte Drive. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, stated that
the proposed development will put out, at the most, approximately 1.5 vehicles
per minute in the peak hours. She stated that there would be no significant
increase in the level of service of delay for existing residents using the I-17
frontage road and Navigation Way. She clarified that this was determined by
looking at trip generation for the proposed development. Ozzie Virgil asked for
clarification about the traffic generation calculation. Dawn Cartier explained that
the calculation was determined by looking at the number of dwelling units and the
Trip Generation Manual produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers.
She stated that the manual is based on thousands of studies and gives average
anticipated traffic for different uses. She added that the calculation determined
that cars from the development would have a minimal affect on average delay
times. Ozzie Virgil asked if the traffic study was completed on a weekday or
Page 563
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
weekend. Dawn Cartier stated that the traffic counts were performed on a
weekday during 7-10 AM and 4-6 PM. She added that the numbers were
adjusted upward to account for COVID-19.
Loyd Nygaard asked about northbound traffic and the closest exit onto I-17
when moving in that direction. Dawn Cartier clarified that the closet exit heading
north is two miles away. Loyd Nygaard asked if there was any access to the
east. David Cisiewski stated that the road dead ends to the east where new
development is taking place. Loyd Nygaard stated that he was concerned about
the difficulty for emergency vehicles to reach the area. Dawn Cartier stated that
she spoke with ADOT and traffic would have to be controlled in an emergency
situation with some cars being rerouted.
Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification about the emergency only ingress
and egress at the northeast corner of the proposed development. David
Cisiewski stated that this is secondary access point specifically for emergency
service vehicles.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to modify the development
regarding color of units and add language to marketing materials clarifying that
Anthem is a private community. He stated that he still had concerns about traffic
in the area. He stated that the City of Phoenix needs to be aware of the traffic
burden that they will be placing on adjacent Maricopa County intersections and
roads. He added that a school is being built in the area, which will also increase
traffic.
Terry Mullarkey stated that he has spoken with ADOT and the City of Phoenix
regarding improvements to the frontage roads on the west side of I-17. He
stated that this is not a viable frontage road and needs to be improved if intended
for emergency vehicle use. He added that the frontage road between Desert
Hills and Anthem Way needs to have a third lane added.
Andrew Brand, a resident of the adjacent Arroyo Norte subdivision, asked for
clarification about the size of each individual unit’s back yard space. David
Cisiewski stated that the average size would be eight to ten feet in depth by the
width of the house, which will vary from thirty to forty feet. Andrew Brand asked
for the location of the closest City funded park. David Cisiewski stated that he
was uncertain of the closest park. Andrew Brand stated that that amenity space
in the proposed development would not be enough to for residents to perform
typical activities done in larger parks. He added that he also had concerns about
safety, traffic, and depreciation in value of adjacent homes.
Andrew Brand stated that the development would create a financial hardship for
adjacent residents. He added that not only would existing residents have to
informally police the community, but also would need to invest money into having
gates installed and roadways improved. He added that there is no reciprocation
Page 564
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
with a residential development, as there would be with a commercial enterprise.
He stated that the existing residents will gain nothing from this proposed
development.
Andrew Brand stated that he is concerned about the impact that the proposed
development will have on the adjacent community. He stated that they are
disappointed to see such high density. He added that he had concerns about the
layout of the development’s units.
David Cisewski stated that the development would be buffered from the
adjacent community by a 38-foot power line easement and that the layout of units
was dictated by the shape and odd cut outs of the property.
Vincent Barbato stated that the typical clientele will older, responsible
individuals who are renters by choice and do not want to purchase a home. He
added that renters will most likely be looking for a single-family home experience
without the hassle of having to purchase a single-family home. He stated that
the proposed development did not have amenities such as playgrounds or
basketball courts because these were not requested during focus groups and
studies. He stated that a luxury rental community would help increase the value
of adjacent homes because they bring a diverse product to the area.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he appreciated the developer’s willingness to
hear and incorporate community comments, but still had concerns that the
development is not in line with the Rio Vista Village’s Development Guidelines.
He stated that the development, technically, has two points of ingress and
egress, but, functionally, only one since the other is specifically for emergency
service vehicles. He added that the development’s elevations do not show
appropriate accent materials per Stipulation 1.g.i, regarding natural accent
materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings and signage. He added that
the development does not illustrate preservation of the desert landscape. He
stated that he also had concerns regarding traffic and emergency services. He
added that it was also important to take into account the social impact that the
proposed development would have on the existing community.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was only willing to consider a motion if there was
an addendum stating that the City and Maricopa County would work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way.
Will Holton agreed with Loyd Nygaard’s statements. He stated that there are
existing traffic problems and the new development would only exasperate those
issues. He stated that the City needs to work with Maricopa County to make it
safer for residents and allow for better emergency service access. He added that
there is not enough space between the proposed units and the development
could easily become a fire hazard.
Page 565
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Ozzie Virgil stated this type of development is not what was anticipated for this
area of the Village. He stated that commercial development was expected. He
added that he is not against development, but is more amenable to development
that is comparable to existing single-family subdivisions.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he appreciated that the
developer was responsive to the community. He stated that there are some
difficulties with the Village Guidelines, because they are not enforceable in the
same way a regulatory overlay is enforceable. However, it is important for the
developer to be proactive and work with the Village regarding development. He
added that is important for the Committee to bring ADOT, the City, and Maricopa
County together to address the community’s concerns regarding traffic. He
agreed with Loyd Nygaard and stated that adding an addendum regarding traffic
would be important if the case were to move forward.
Will Holton stated that he was disappointed with the proposed development
because the community’s issues had not been appropriately addressed. He
added that it is important that the Committee be proactive when items have
unresolved issues.
Committee members asked for clarification regarding the recommendation
process. Samantha Keating explained that the Committee is a recommending
body and can choose to recommend approval, denial, or approval with
modifications.
Will Holton stated that it would be beneficial to get feedback from traffic
engineers and emergency services prior to moving forward with the item.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1 with an
additional stipulation requiring that the City and Maricopa County work together
for improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage
road and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit
232, and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The
motion was seconded by Judy Lorch.
Samantha Keating clarified that it is difficult to tie a particular development to
larger traffic improvement. She advised that any traffic concerns could be
included as additional direction to City staff.
MOTION: Ozzie Virgil made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. He
requested that staff ensure the City and Maricopa County work together for
improvements to the I-17 frontage road, the intersection of the I-17 frontage road
and Arroyo Norte Drive, the intersection of New River Road and I-17 at Exit 232,
and the entrances and exits of Anthem Way and Navigation Way. The motion
was seconded by Judy Lorch.
Page 566
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Sommacampagna, Lorch, Nygaard, and
Virgil in favor and Committee Members Scharboneau and Holton in opposition.
4. PHO-1-21—Z-47-07-1: Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to modify stipulations of entitlement for the property located
approximately 775 feet north of the northwest corner of I-17 and Old West Trail.
Request for review and approval of site plan and elevations by the Planning
Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1 and modification of Stipulation 2 regarding
approval of a comprehensive sign plan.
The Planning Hearing Officer will consider this request on April 21, 2021.
1 person in opposition indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site and the
surrounding zoning. She indicated that the original commercial development
proposed in 2007 was intended to provide a buffer between the interstate and
residential development to the west. She noted that there were no specific plans
in 2007 and a stipulation was included requiring conceptual site plans and
elevations to be reviewed and approved through the Planning Hearing Officer
(PHO) process. She stated that the proposed development is a 191-unit, gated,
casita-style residential community. She noted that primary access would be from
43rd Avenue and secondary access from the Iinterstate-17 (I-17) frontage road.
She added that the development will provide three main styles for their
elevations.
Julianna Pierre stated that in addition to submitting plans for review and
approval, the applicant is requesting to modify Stipulation 2, regarding approval
of a comprehensive sign plan.
Brennan Ray, representing NexMetro Communities, stated that the current
zoning permits the proposed multifamily use and that the project was going
through the PHO process to comply with a stipulation and request a modification.
He added that he was aware of community concerns and held a neighborhood
meeting on March 31, 2021 to discuss the project. He added that during the
meeting there were general questions about the development, traffic, and the
intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray provided a summary about the type of residents that the
community will attract. He stated that most will be older, single residents who
previously lived in a single-family home. He added that, on average, there would
be two children per ten households. He clarified that this information was based
on the almost 2,000 units that NexMetro has constructed in Maricopa County.
Brennan Ray stated that there would be a courtyard layout with one, two, and
three-bedroom units. He added that units would have private, landscaped
backyards. He stated that there would be a total of 191 residences with a central
amenity area, primary access from 43rd Avenue, and secondary access from the
Page 567
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
I-17 frontage road. He stated that the development would have three
architectural styles, which are all consistent with Stipulation 1, regarding review
and approval of a site plan and elevations. He added that the development has
taken the Rio Vista Design Guidelines into account. He stated that the
development meets specific guidelines, citing desert tone colors, more than one
point of ingress and egress, large building setbacks from I-17, decorative walls,
four-sided architecture, varying rooflines, and multiple floorplans with various
façades. He stated that there are various amenities throughout the development
that are connected by sidewalks. He stated that information will be provided to
residents notifying them that Anthem facilities are private.
Brennan Ray stated that the right-of-way at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way has
been acquired and improvements are planned to begin in May or June of 2021.
He added that the development will have little to no impact on the level of service
at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way.
Brennan Ray discussed the emergency response times for both police and fire
services. He stated that a mutual aid policy exists between the Maricopa County
Sheriff Office and the Phoenix Police Department and both provide emergency
assistance to each other along the jurisdictional borders. He added that primary
emergency response to fires in the north Phoenix area is provided by the Daisy
Mountain Fire District based on an automatic aid agreement that includes twenty
different fire departments and districts valley wide. He stated that the Phoenix
Fire Department anticipates a new fire station in the 43rd Avenue and Circle
Mountain Road area. He added that the proposed development will generate
approximately $1.5 million in impact fees, some of which will be distributed to fire,
police, and parks.
Judy Lorch stated that the development will have some children. She asked
where the children would be attending school. Brennan Ray stated that there
have been no discussions with the school district, and he was unsure of which
school children would attend. Judy Lorch asked about access via the I-17
frontage road. Brennan Ray stated that northbound travel is permitted from
Anthem Way to Old West Trail and north and southbound travel is permitted
north of Old West Trail.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he was thankful that the developer researched and
attempted to meet the desires of the Village. He added that if he were to vote on
this item, he would require additional direction discussing the need for
improvements for the frontage road west of I-17, the intersection of Anthem Way
and 41st Drive, and Old West Trail. He clarified that all these locations create
tremendous traffic hazards. Brennan Ray stated that the site did go through the
development preapplication process and did not receive any major comments
related to traffic. He reiterated that the City is intending to make improvements to
43rd Avenue beginning in May or June 2021. He added that the proposed
residential use would also generate less traffic than a commercial use.
Page 568
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
Will Holton asked for clarification regarding the name of the development.
Brennan Ray clarified that the name was Avilla Vista Norte and Avilla was
intended to be short for “a village”.
Ozzie Virgil asked if the property was under escrow. Brennan Ray stated that
NexMetro is in escrow to acquire the property. Ozzie Virgil asked if NexMetro
intended to acquire other properties in the area. He added that the Village was
trying to create a balance between high and low density in the area. Brennan
Ray stated that NexMetro did not intend to purchase other properties or build
similar projects in the area.
Steven Scharboneau asked if both points of ingress and egress would be
accessible to residents at all times. Brennan Ray stated that both entrances
would be gated, but accessible to residents twenty-four hours, seven days a
week.
Terry Mullarkey, executive director for the Anthem Community Council, stated
that Anthem is opposed to the development. He added that he was disappointed
that the multifamily development does not comply with the Rio Vista Village
Design Guidelines. He stated that from experience he knew that the impact fees
would not be seen north of Happy Valley Road. He added that the I-17 frontage
road does not go north or south, but dead ends in both directions. He clarified
that traffic exiting the proposed development would need to exit 43rd Avenue.
He also expressed concerns regarding 43rd Avenue and stated that the planned
improvements would not be adequate. He added that emergency access would
also be an issue unless the I-17 frontage road was improved.
Brennan Ray stated that the Rio Vista Village Design Guidelines do not have
specific parameters for hybrid developments that fall between traditional
multifamily and traditional single-family. He stated that the guidelines were
reviewed, and the developer attempted to satisfy those design guidelines to the
best of their ability. He reiterated that this item is a PHO request and that the
development meets the applicable stipulations.
Brennan Ray stated that the City did not ask the developer to contribute to the
widening or improvements at 43rd Avenue and Anthem Way because the funding
was met through a prior case. He added that 43rd Avenue did have an
appropriate level of service, despite perhaps having a few seconds added to wait
times. He stated that in an emergency the I-17 frontage road can allow for two-
way traffic per ADOT mandate. He added that local law enforcement would
control the two-way traffic.
Steven Scharboneau stated that he understands that this is not a rezoning
case, but the density is not what the community wants to see in this area. He
added that it would be important for the Village Planning Committee to create
guidelines for developments that fall between traditional multifamily and
Page 569
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
traditional single-family. Will Holton agreed with Steven Scharboneau. He
added that the development is too dense.
Ozzie Virgil stated that this type of development is not what was envisioned for
the area. He reiterated that there needs to be a balance of high and low density
in the Village. He stated that the development will exacerbate existing issues in
the area. He clarified that he is not anti-development, but feels any proposed
development needs to be sensible.
Loyd Nygaard stated that while he had issues with the density, he believed that
this was a PHO case and should be voting on whether the proposed
development meets the appropriate stipulations. Chair Massimo
Sommacampagna clarified that this not a rezoning case or a land use issue. He
stated that they should determine whether the elevations and site plan conform
to the listed stipulations. He added that multifamily is permitted in the C-2 zoning
district. Steven Scharboneau stated that their recommendation is based on
community input and that recommendation will be provided to the PHO. Will
Holton stated the Village Planning Committee (VPC) is the voice of the
community and their comments and concerns should be considered.
MOTION: Judy Lorch made a motion to approve PHO-1-21—Z-47-07. The
motion was seconded by Chair Massimo Sommacampagna.
VOTE: 2-4 with Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in favor and
Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil in opposition.
This motion failed.
Will Holton asked for clarity on the semantics of the motion. Steven
Scharboneau asked whether the intent behind the recommendation is forwarded
with the recommendation. Samantha Keating clarified that the recommendation
from the committee would include a summary of the commentary.
Will Holton stated that the motion should include language that requires less
density and input from the City, Maricopa County, and ADOT regarding traffic
issues. Steven Scharboneau and Ozzie Virgil agreed that this was outside the
purview of the Committee. Samantha Keating clarified that the applicant is
proposing review of the site plan and elevations, so the committee can make
additional modifications within that context. Brennan Ray clarified that the
stipulations focus primarily on design. Will Holton stated that the design does
not meet Rio Vista’s Design Guidelines.
MOTION: Steven Scharboneau made a motion to deny PHO-1-21—Z-47-07.
The motion was seconded by Will Holton.
VOTE: 4-2 with Committee Members Scharboneau, Holton, Nygaard, and Virgil
in favor and Committee Members Sommacampagna and Lorch in opposition.
Page 570
Rio Vista Village Planning Committee
Minutes – April 13, 2021
5. Public comments concerning items not on the agenda.
None.
6. Staff update on cases recently reviewed by the Committee.
None.
7. Committee member announcements, requests for information, follow up, or
future agenda items.
Loyd Nygaard stated that he felt he had a better understanding of the process
after the second presentation. He stated that he would entertain a venue for
changing his vote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. Steven Scharboneau stated that it
would be positive to review information when members were first appointed to
the committee and review the purpose of the VPC. Will Holton asked if there
could be a motion to revote on PHO-1-21—Z-48-07. The Committee members
agreed that the item had been passed and they would not revote.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna suggested that there be an agenda item or
presentation regarding the purpose and intent of the VPC.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked staff for a future agenda item to
discuss community issues with ADOT and Maricopa County to bridge the
disconnect between the community and public entities.
8. Adjournment.
The Rio Vista Village Planning Committee meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
Page 571
(;+,%,7.
Page 572
REPORT OF PLANNING HEARING OFFICER ACTION
Adam Stranieri, Planner III, Hearing Officer
Danielle Jordan, Planner I, Assisting
April 21, 2021
ITEM NO: 2
DISTRICT 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17
and Arroyo Norte Drive
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Request: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for
approval by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation
1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
ACTIONS
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer
recommended approval with a modification and additional stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their March 9, 2021 meeting and voted
5-0 to continue the request to the April 13, 2021 meeting. The Rio Vista Village
Planning Committee heard this request at their April 13, 2021 meeting and voted
4-2 to recommend approval.
DISCUSSION
Dave Cisiewski, the applicant, gave an overview of the request. He stated that
the request is for approval of a conceptual site plan and elevations for a
multifamily community consisting of detached, standalone, single-story units to
be developed on a portion of the original rezoning area. He stated that the
subject property is located at the southeast corner of the I-17 freeway and Arroyo
Norte Drive and consists of approximately 16 acres located on the eastern
portion of a larger 26-acre lot. He stated that when the property was rezoned to
C-2 in 2007 there was no site plan for the overall development. He stated the
Page 573
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 2
proposed use is a gated community consisting of 170 detached residences with
private backyards, covered parking, parks, community areas, and walking trails.
He stated that the parking is discreet and located near the residences.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that in addition to the required public notification, and due to
community input he received, a community meeting was held on March 31, 2021.
He stated that the comments from the community meeting revolved around the
name of the development, density, design and colors, compatibility, parking,
parks, amenities, traffic and site access. He stated that in response to community
comments the name of the development was changed from “Arise Arroyo Norte”
to “Arise North Phoenix” to prevent potential confusion regarding the existing
subdivision to the east. He stated that the proposed density of 12.2 dwelling units
per acre is significantly less than what is allowed by right under the existing
approved C-2 zoning. He noted concerns about the design, colors, and
compatibility with the surrounding area, and stated that the units are all single
story and the color scheme had been changed to a more compatible desert color
palette. He noted concerns about parking and stated that the site is providing 275
spaces while only 255 parking space are required and the developer will install
no parking signs along Arroyo Notre Drive, subject to City approval. He noted
concerns about parks and amenities and stated that the site will provide 7.4%
community open space, exceeding the required minimum 5% open space. He
noted concerns regarding traffic and stated that a traffic impact statement was
completed for the project.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that Stipulations 1.a and 1.b regarding elevations are being
met with the revised desert color palette. He stated that Stipulation 1.d regarding
landscaping, arcades, and overhang, and Stipulation 1.e regarding parking areas
are more relevant to the development of a commercial shopping center. He
stated that Stipulation 1.g, regarding consideration of the site design for
residential uses to mitigate impacts of the I-17, is being addressed with an
approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17 frontage road. He stated that
Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan is being addressed with the
building elevations’ inclusion of detailed accents throughout the development.
Adam Stranieri asked whether the resubmitted site plan and elevations were
strictly exhibits for new amenities and colors. Mr. Cisiewski replied yes and that
the site plan date stamped January 28, 2021 is the one that he would like to be
considered in reference to any recommended stipulations.
Sean Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he had concerns
about traffic at the Anthem Way exit on the I-17, ability to access the
neighborhood, and the potential increase in cars from a proposed school site to
the north and from new single-family development to the east. He stated that he
wished that more communication had been done between the City and Maricopa
County.
Page 574
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 3
Lisa Thomas, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that Arroyo Norte
Drive cannot handle any increase in traffic, especially with the new proposed
school to the north of the site. She stated that the project is not a good fit for the
area due to the increased density, safety issues, and fire hazards.
Albert Dieva, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the developer is
unfamiliar with the area and that no parking signs will not be effective. He stated
that he had concerns with lack of parking, open space, and on-site amenities.
Andrew Brand, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that an opposition
petition was created in response to this case which includes over 100 signatures.
He stated that the virtual meeting format is a disservice to the community
members. He stated that he has concerns about the increased traffic along the I-
17 frontage road, the potential fire hazard, and the potential impacts regarding a
proposed school on the north side of Arroyo Norte Drive.
Harmony Brown, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about traffic along the I-17 frontage road, the increase in traffic from the
development and the proposed school to the north, the fact that there is only one
road providing access to her subdivision to the east, lack of parking in the
development, and fire hazards.
Richard Zimmerman, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he would
like the stipulation regarding a comprehensive sign plan to be retained in its
original form. He stated that he had concerns about the traffic impact statement
that was conducted by the applicant. He stated that the amount of parking that
the development has is inadequate. He stated that the site and surrounding area
lacks transportation infrastructure and adequate capacity for fire response. He
suggested that a stipulation be added that addresses a dark sky initiative or dark
sky lighting concepts.
Robert Townsend, speaking in opposition to the request, expressed concerns
regarding traffic impacts to surrounding areas and the compatibility of the
proposed density. He stated that the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee did
not follow their own guidelines and standards in making their recommendation for
approval.
Terry Mullarkey, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the site has
unique issues with traffic and is surrounded by properties in Maricopa County
jurisdiction. He expressed concerns regarding the City and County working
together to address traffic issues and stated that they need to look at a greater
area than merely the area around Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 frontage road.
He also had concerns about increased traffic with a proposed school site to the
north. He stated that the density is not compatible with the area.
Page 575
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 4
Tyler Estes, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that the development is
not consistent or conforming with developments in the surrounding area and will
create traffic issues along Arroyo Norte Drive. He stated that he is concerned that
the developer is meeting the bare minimum requirements set by the Rio Vista
Design Guidelines and the City. He stated that he also has concerns about fire
hazards.
Dick Gates, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he is concerned
with the increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive with the additional traffic created
by the new proposed school to the north and the new single-family development
to the east. He stated that the proposed parking is inadequate.
Jennifer Sylvester, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has
concerns about the potential for increased traffic on Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-
17 Frontage Road stemming from the proposed development as well as from a
new proposed school site to the north.
Angela Cox, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she has concerns
about potential fire hazards.
Crystal Hodge, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that she shares all of
the concerns regarding traffic issues as raised by previous speakers.
Wyatt Earp, speaking in opposition to the request, stated that he agrees with
previous comments from those opposing the case and suggested that any
required traffic studies need to be completed on the weekend to reflect accurate
traffic data. He stated that he has concerns with traffic along the I-17 freeway and
the frontage road not having enough lanes to support the potential increase in
traffic.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that the concerns regarding fire hazards are regarding
natural wildfires that are occurring in the larger area and unfortunately, from the
standpoint of the PHO application, there is not a lot to do for wildfire prevention in
this context. He stated that through the Development Division site plan pre-
application process they received no additional requirements for street
dedications or other conditions regarding submittal of traffic statements or
studies. He noted that the development is not proposed to be a 55 and older
community. He stated that the proposed landscape palette is of a desert
character and the development will have low level lighting. He stated that the
density proposed is less than what is permitted by right in the C-2 zoning district.
Adam Stranieri stated that the original rezoning case included approximately 46
acres and established the C-2 zoning in 2007. He noted that the PHO request
consisted of approximately 16 acres in the southeast portion of the original case
area. He stated that the only public right-of-way adjacent to the site is Arroyo
Norte Drive along the north property line. He noted that the west property line is
Page 576
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 5
adjacent to a drainage easement and the other property lines are adjacent to
private property and are not adjacent to the I-17 frontage road itself. He stated
that the property across Arroyo Norte Drive to the north, where neighbors noted
that a new school site has been proposed, is in the boundaries of the original
rezoning case, but is not subject to this PHO request. He stated that he cannot
stipulate a requirement for no parking signs along Arroyo Norte Drive, as
suggested by the applicant, as these would be subject to approval from the
Street Transportation Department. He stated that the current PHO request could
not address larger regional or off-site traffic issues and require coordination with
other government agencies regarding these regional or off-site issues. However,
he noted that the Maricopa County Street Transportation Department submitted a
comment on the case and made a request to be included in the review of
relevant plans to allow collaboration with City staff and that this information was
provided to the Street Transportation Department staff as part of this case
review.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1 regarding approval of a conceptual site plan
and elevations was established as there were no plans at the time of the original
rezoning. He also noted that the case originally anticipated that the site would be
developed with a variety of commercial uses. He noted that the proposed site
plan depicts a multifamily residential development which consists of 170 units
with a density of 12 units per acre, which is below the potential density of the
existing R-3 zoning designation. He stated that the proposed open space of 7.4%
represents an approximately 50% increase over the Zoning Ordinance standard.
He stated that the proposed single-story building height is appropriate for the
area.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.a regarding architectural consistency in
elevations was primarily intended to address a commercial center with multiple
users. He stated that Stipulation 1.b regarding primary finishing materials
consisting of a natural desert context has been appropriately met through the
revised elevations, however he stated that he would not recommend stipulating
to these drawings due to the lack of 4-sided perspective and desired features,
which would be relevant to a general conformance review. He noted that the
original submitted building elevations contained 4-sided architecture and
identified architectural features such as window orientation, size, and variation
and varied roof lines. He stated that he would recommend general conformance
to the original elevations, however with an additional stipulation requiring building
and wall colors be muted and blend with the desert environment. He noted that
this stipulation was drawn from a design presumption in the Desert Character
Overly District. He stated that the applicant’s revised color palette would conform
with this design presumption.
Page 577
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 6
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.c regarding drive-through facilities,
Stipulation 1.d regarding landscaping and arcades, and Stipulation 1.e regarding
parking areas were relevant to the original contemplated commercial
developments.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.f required special consideration be given to
site design for residential uses to adequately mitigate impacts of the I-17
freeway. He stated that in terms of site design the property is setback from the
freeway and the impacts are partially mitigated by, and more relevant to, the
adjacent parcel to the west which is adjacent to the I-17 freeway frontage road.
He stated that in addition to the approximately 500-foot setback from the I-17
freeway, no units front the west property line. He stated that in terms of the
submitted landscape plan there are a variety of medium and large canopy trees
that are located along the west property line. He asked Mr. Cisiewski about the
proposed landscaping within the private rear yards along with west property line.
Mr. Cisiewski stated that it would consist of low-level landscaping and, depending
on the lot orientation, a tree to provide shade which would be installed as part of
the initial development.
Mr. Stranieri stated that Stipulation 1.g regarding an architectural plan was
relevant to the desire to see compatibility between multiple tenants within the
larger commercial development area envisioned in the original case. However,
he stated that in terms of architectural detailing the first submittal elevations
provide pop-outs, window variations and sizes. He noted that if the remainder of
the rezoning area was to develop with commercial uses, the stipulation would
remain for these properties.
Mr. Stranieri stated that there are no concerns with removing the requirement to
comply with Stipulation 2 regarding a comprehensive sign plan as the request
solely involved the one multifamily residential project. However, he
recommended a minor modification to clarify that the comprehensive sign plan
requirement would apply for commercial land uses only.
FINDINGS
1) The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with
commercial uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in
the original application, it was unknown at the time how the site would
ultimately develop, what specific uses would be implemented, and the
scale and intensity of future development. Therefore, Stipulation 1 was
adopted to require Planning Hearing Officer review through the public
hearing process once these became available. However, this stipulation
did recognize that the site may develop with residential uses as permitted
in the approved C-2 zoning designation. Stipulation 1.f directly addressed
Page 578
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 7
this by establishing criteria for mitigating impacts of the I-17 on potential
residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit
multifamily complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences.
The proposed density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less
than the 17.40 dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD
development option with bonus points. The proposed height is less than
the two stories and 30 feet permitted in the R-3 PRD development option.
Proposed open space is approximately 1.18 acres or 7.4% of the gross
site area, which is greater than the minimum 5% required. The proposed
residences are detached stand-alone units rather than a traditional
multifamily apartment complex. The scale and intensity of the proposal is
appropriate for its location along the I-17 freeway corridor, consistent with
the existing zoning and General Plan Land Use map designation, and
creates a buffer between existing single-family development to the east,
adjacent commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway corridor.
2) Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the
review of the site plan and elevations. General conformance to the
proposed conceptual site plan and elevations is recommended as
discussed in these findings.
3) Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations
regarding building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and
signage. This stipulation was originally intended to address the potential
development of the site with multiple commercial uses. With the
conversion of this stipulation to general conformance for the proposed
residential development, these concerns are not wholly relevant.
However, the residential elevations do provide an appropriate level of
consistency while still providing for architectural diversity with three home
styles. Architectural features include multiple window styles, decorative
window treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent colors, and varied
rooflines.
4) Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate
for a desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof
tiles. Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco.
Accent colors are limited to front doors.
5) The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color
palette intended to address concerns raised during public outreach
regarding the compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations
submitted with the request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue,
and red accent doors and a Mediterranean palette. However, the revised
elevations were limited to single-perspective renderings, did not
Page 579
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 8
incorporate the new door colors on the revised palette, and did not include
the level of detail on the four-sided elevations in the original submittal.
Therefore, an additional stipulation is recommended that addresses the
use of colors that blend with the desert environment, prohibiting reflective
materials, and limiting accent colors. The revised color palette date
stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this stipulation. However, the
stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in reviewing the final palette
as there is no building elevation that depicts all the appropriate colors in a
single image.
6) Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are
addressed in the applicant’s submittal as follows:
e) Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is
located along Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road,
which will allow a continuous perimeter wall along the west property
line. No units front the west property line and there are private yards
located along this area.
f) Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-
17 frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between
the I-17 and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large
parcel, subject to the stipulations of this case, and an approximately
70-foot wide drainage channel.
g) Sound barriers – A 6-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the
west perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does
not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest
unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
h) Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a
variety of large and medium canopy shade trees along the west
property line in open spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow,
oak, and ash. However, the majority of the west property line consists
of private yards and trees are not depicted. The fact that the subject
property does not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and the closest unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-
17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced landscaping standards in
this area. The property is subject to existing Ordinance standards for
landscaping in multifamily developments. The remaining parcel
between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this stipulation and
landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for these
plans.
Page 580
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 9
7) Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that
were relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple
commercial users. Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the
considerations are reflected in the conceptual elevations and the
recommendation for general conformance.
8) Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was
relevant to the assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would
develop with multiple commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant
to the development of the site with a single multifamily development. The
applicant’s request to modify this stipulation is recommended to be
approved with a modification to the standard language to specify that this
requirement is only relevant to development proposals for commercial
land uses.
DECISION: The Planning Hearing Officer recommended approval with a
modification and additional stipulations.
STIPULATIONS
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the
Planning Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site
plan(s) and elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH
THE SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28,
2021, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED
BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are
Page 581
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 10
not directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i. Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for buildings
and signage.
ii. Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii. Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
iv. Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as walls
interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and finished with
materials similar to those of the buildings’ architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan
approval for the first phase of development.
3. That 25 feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of Teresa
Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of
the freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 582
Planning Hearing Officer Summary of April 21, 2021
Application PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Page 11
5. That 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
or modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior
to clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary
based on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be
notified by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of
any PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site
plan meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer
hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A
FORM APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. THE WAIVER
SHALL BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S
OFFICE AND DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE
REZONING APPLICATION FILE FOR RECORD.
Upon request, this publication will be made available within a reasonable length
of time through appropriate auxiliary aids or services to accommodate an
individual with a disability. This publication may be made available through the
following auxiliary aids or services: large print, Braille, audiotape or computer
diskette. Please contact the Planning and Development Department, Tamra
Ingersoll at voice number 602-534-6648 or TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 583
(;+,%,7/
Page 584
!"#$%$"
& '()*(+!
"$",-.%/%"! (0(1 2 ('(( 2( 3 ( *
*(+2 *4!)( 45!* 5)( **(+!
* (6 ( !$"$%$"7889 *((1 ()
* ('(( (4 ' *5( (4 ' ( *
(( !5)( '(4 ( * : (( ( ( * ((
)4!!' 0 * * '()*(+ ; (( !( (4
1**1 ! ( ** ) ' *!( <5! '
()(4 5!(< *5( *(( * 4 (4 7
"78 *
('(( ( () (+ !'$=%
*( !( !'; ( * 5( () *
(( !1 * *((4 (4 * 5( 4<!(
! ((4 ( * 784 (4 '! *)(( *!! ( *()
*(+ ( >)( 1!!)( *!'<
*5 * *?4! '*( 78 ( ( *@ ( * 5(
('(( 1 ( <;(' * 4?4<!4
< ( ! 5! ! !'1 * *@
( (( 0 0 <!) '!78
*A 1 1 !4 *1 * < ( ! '
( 0)( * !< 7 * ! 0(1 *)
* !! ('(( ( (15( + !
! (4 (4 ' (4 0 < ! 0
( ! * 4! !'(4! !( ; ((4 *!'
< ! 1 *78 4 * ((1(4!0(1 *'*!)
*1 *(4 5 (!7 ! ( (()(4
(4 78
*"$",-.%/%"1(4!5!( * 4 ('((
*54 ( * ! ( * )) * * (78
9 !'5!< * *! (5)( '(4<(!< (( !
Page 585
* <(! 5( * ** () * 4 (4 (4 *
4! )( *5'(B B!! 78 (!!' * ('((
(4 '!0 *A ! *(4 *( ()*(+ *
(B B!! 4! ) !'1* **(+ (( !5)(
'(4( ( 788
9*< < !(B B!! ( * *<
<1 *! 45 5'& ?4 ( *( 15!<
* * (( !)! ( *( 4! (45 ()) ( (
()1** < 5!)( * * ' (( !!( + ((
!(1 ' !)!'(4 ' 4* (4 789
* *)(!!(1 (C 1 * *(B 4!
D888888 4! (" ?4 * 4 * 4 4 ?4
(!45 0 ( 1!! ( * ) 4 (5!1 * *
4 (4 ! ( * *( *(4 '78 *
(( !< ( (( 5 * ?4 4! ( 78
D888888 4!
D888888& 00 1!!5 <!' *?4 < 11(4!
+ * 1!!5 4 78
D8888889 * ?4 !'4 * (( !78
4 * ( 1?4 5(4 *) () *E4F1 *1 *
* !; ( *9 () * (( !78 * 1 *
C(1 (4 *!') (( * ((4 *5 C' * (4 * * *(
(4 '5)( *(4 ! !! ' ( 4
( * (4 *() *789*< "%4 (
<( *(1 * + () *1 *?4 (7 * <(1!!5
4! G
D888888H4 : ( * ! ' ( !4 * (( !7
8 ( *5 ()(4 0(1! & ?4 ( * + (
()1 * < (54 : ( * ! ' 1*<
( (+ * 7
* ;4 )1() *(4 1**1 (4
()(!78& ?4 ( * ( < !( *
1**1 ! !'(4 ()(!!4 (!(
! ( 1 * * 4 (4 *(B
4! (4 4 ! < ( 78< (
< ( !!' * !!' !78 ( ( !4 4 (
Page 586
* *( 4 ! 4 (4 78 !'( @ *
** ()(4 *( 7
$78) '
6 () * ( '7 <(4 !' ('(( !(
( * () * (( ! * 4 () ('(( <7
89 5! (+ (4 *5( *(((!'( (78
* * ( ''EI"$ *((!1 *(54 <F (;
;4 (4 ( * ) ( 1!! ( * <
(4 () 6 ((4 (78!! 6) ((4 (4 '
5( *() * <!( )4!( ( *) ( (1**
;4 (!* (78 * * * (1'1 *
! ')(4 !' (4 ( ('(( <1 ** ( '
()* * 78 * (1 ! ' (4 7'
(! 61!!)4! ( *: 7
9!: 6; ) * 1 ! (*(+ *(4! ;
* (( ! * 78 * "/) 1'50 4< ' !10
*1 ( * (*(!' < ! ( *( (
(! *! 4! () ( 1!: 7 4! * ) ?4
) 1'!( 4 5' 6( ( * ) ( ( * <
(4 !)! (4 *< () '78 < <
! * *4 < ' * *<
?40!' ! *: * 7 (1!< *)(( *!! 1 *
4?4(1 !(1< ) ( *( *J( * 78 * 1
< 4 !' ( 5 ! ! * ! )(
' 78
( * 1( 1 < '1( * (4 (!' (4 1!!5
*(01 *) 1' 61*1 ( 788! * *<
! ) ()1!: 4 ( 1< 1 *(4 *
' () 4 4 (!!(14 ( )!' 74 * ( *
6; 1!! < ' (!) ( * (4 (4 '
1*1 7
=78 (4 ' (4
('(( '!((0!0 *54 ()(< "%%%%*(
' 4 !0 *( (4 + ! ;4 $=%1' 784
4 ! '+ *( () * ! '64! ((
1 * * 4! !' * '((!1**1(( *<
(784 * ( 1*<4** * () *
Page 587
*( 1 *(4 * !1 ) 4 4 11(4!
( * *78 *( 1' ((!! )( (4 1 /KL() *
4 1') ( (1 (4 0 (< *!)()(4 54 (
(1 1 (4 7
9 * * (( ! *(4!( 5 (<1 *(4
( (() *! :! 1!!( (
*5( 784 (4 ' ( * (( !
!( * + (4 1 * K%' ) ((4
"%%L < !')4 078 )* ( ' ' 4 *5(
(4 4 ( 0 < ( ( 1 ** * '
!4 1 *(4 !5!!:!5 0 5!!(4 ( !' (4
4?4 (5! * (4 0 1!!54 5' * 78 * (
45!!')4*(+ 0 ( !' (4 '1* * (( !7
) * (( ! !!'( ' ! 4 (45'
"%%L < !')4 0 * ('(( 78& ?4 (
1!!! '5: ) (* *(+1 ( ( *
+( 5 ( ('(( '78 * * 11!!
4)) <!' 45 > * (4 '1 *(4 0 ( !'4) 78
('(( *< 1 * *<!( @ ( '*<
< !(B B!! ( * 7 *<!(
* )4 (0' (() *()) (< *!' :!788 *'
!'* > * 3! 2 ! 050' 78
(1< 11(4!4 '! (!((0!( !' 1* * (( !
!!'()) (5(< * ( ( *( (
*( ('(( *78
4 ' * (( ! (4 !1 * * 7 1!! !!'
)) *1'()!) * * *5( (4 4* ('(
( *<( (+ 1!! ! : *> 1 *(4
?4 (4 (5( * *((1 !0789*
( ) ( * '! ( *(4 ' *
1!! 4!'5 ( *'( * * ('(( 78
( * ( ! 5(<( * ( !5( * 5(<E 4*
?4 0 ( * ( F1(( * <!(
* ( () 789( *< ' !*> 5
( *4 ()?4 ( () 4 4 *
5'(789! ( * () ) '
( 5! ' '(4 ( ( * 4 7 *(4!
* ( ( (1 * * (; *4 )
Page 588
( ( )( 1**'(4 (1(( & ?4 ( *(4!
5 4 (<)4 )( (< *4!() * ( (J ('(
( < (7& *(4! * ')( *4 () ('((
0 ( )( ( ( (4 < !')4 1**1!!(15
+( (* * '<!( + (( 78
*0'(4)( '(4 ( (7
!'
() ('(( 7
Page 589
'! 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ( 1< , $%$"%-"#
I 0 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
* (+ *(+, $%$"%-"#
1 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
*H ( M , $%$"%-"#
&!!B!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
M(!!'4 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ( ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
I'! 1< , $%$"%-"#
&*0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
'4 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
( ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N (M * 1< , $%$"%-"#
( 0! 1< , $%$"%-"#
M! *0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
>!I!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
* I *(+, $%$"%-"#
N(! 0! 0 , $%$"%-"#
4 *( 1< , $%$"%-"#
Page 590
H 'M * *(+, $%$"%-"#
' 5 1< , $%$"%-"#
1H *(+, $%$"%-"#
!' 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! !!*(( 1 < , $%$"%-"#
( 54 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
* ! *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
N) (1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 (1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
! (4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
( )) ( ! $%$"%-"#
*!9!!< *(+, $%$"%-"#
;(5!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I!(0 1< , $%$"%-"#
M*!!&( 1< , $%$"%-"#
IH4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
M0(5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
&(! (1 1< , $%$"%-"#
H '(4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 591
!9 !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!!* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
'@(4 0 < 0, $%$"%-"#
I H4! *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!!N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
H(5 !! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! 1< , $%$"%-"#
1< , $%$"%-"#
N( 9 !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
N))!5 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
M*!)) 1< , $%$"%-"#
' 5 1< , $%$"%-"#
?4! 5!! ( !, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N!!4?4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
&(4 9' 1< , $%$"%-"#
M! H40 *(+, $%$"%-"#
* ' & !! , $%$"%-"#
I !! *(+, $%$"%-"#
*(+, $%$"%-"#
4 1)( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(0( 0 1< , $%$"%-"#
Page 592
( &< $%$"%-"#
N( *(+, $%$"%-"#
>(!* *(+, $%$"%-"#
!1!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
M'M&4)) *(+, $%$"%-"#
I ( H( & $%$"%-"#
*!'< *(+, $%$"%-"#
((0 1< , $%$"%-"#
5 ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
!>5 *(1 1< , $%$"%-"#
I'! 5 $%$"%-"#
4 (5 1< , $%$"%-"#
I!!'N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
M *1* ( 1< , $%$"%-"#
M*! ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
H 4 '!( 1< , $%$"%-"#
N) ?4( *(+, $%$"%-"#
9' *(+, $%$"%-"#
(MM4!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
MI'!M&4)) *(+, $%$"%-"#
! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I &!!5(4 * *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 593
' ( $%$"%-"#
N(! !(> !54?4 ?4O $%$"%-"#
*(!! ( !, $%$"%-"#
4!!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
1 *(+, $%$"%-"#
N( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( 5 ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(5 1' *(+, $%$"%-"#
H ((0!' ) *(+, $%$"%-"#
N( 4> *(+, $%$"%-"#
I '( 4 ( 0 $%$"%-"#
< *(+, $%$"%-"#
*19* ' 1< , $%$"%-"#
N (&4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
(( &4 * 1< , $%$"%-"#
(!N(* ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( (4 *! *(+, $%$"%-"#
I& 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
H!0H ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&!4!!< *, $%$"%-"#
* M( ( ' *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 594
M0N(* ( *, $%$"%-"#
4 *4' 1< , $%$"%-"#
( * 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
N4! ( , $%$"%-"#
!'M!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&< 4 *(+, $%$"%-"#
I * ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
(! 4 1< , $%$"%-"#
M0I( *, $%$"%-"#
*!5' !' ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
&<9* 1< , $%$"%-"#
(!!'H' !' *(+, $%$"%-"#
H &< ( ! $%$"%-"#
*(!9* 1< , $%$"%-"#
H 5 *(+, $%$"%-"#
< 0 * $%$"%-"#
* 41 *(+, $%$"%-"#
H ( *(+, $%$"%-"#
I M' *(+, $%$"%-"#
&1H! *(+, $%$"%-"#
&((0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
Page 595
5 M (B!! 1< , $%$"%-"#
*(!( *, $%$"%-"#
I & * 1< , $%$"%-"#
I (!0 1< , $%$"%-"#
*(+, $%$"%-"#
M(!!'( *(+, $%$"%-"#
( *(+, $%$"%-"#
N) <( 1< , $%$"%-"#
4!' *(+, $%$"%-"#
4> 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
(!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
H(> * *(+, $%$"%-"#
H0' ' < <!!O $%$"%-"#
*(1 ( !!, $%$"%-"#
N(* ) ( !, $%$"%-"#
N 0! !5 , $%$"%-"#
*M *(+, $%$"%-"#
M H! 0 *(+, $%$"%-"#
*4 &1' *(+, $%$"%-"#
9!!4!!' *(+, $%$"%-"#
* H *, $%$"%-"#
( M, $%$"%-"#
Page 596
B0 1< , $%$"%-"#
!+ M!! *(+, $%$"%-"#
* H(( *, $%$"%-"#
! 1< , $%$"%-"#
I< (' 1< , $%$"%-"#
I 4 *, $%$"%-"#
<I 4 *, $%$"%-"#
& * *(+, $%$"%-$%
M ' (1 !!, $%$"%-$%
H (+O $%$"%-$%
I &( *, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I * &1' *(+, $%$"%-$%
H0'9* ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
(5 I!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
M 'I!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
4H !! *(+, $%$"%-$%
* * *(+, $%$"%-$%
I< ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I H( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N' ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
4 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
Page 597
('H (1 1< , $%$"%-$%
N ((!* *(+, $%$"%-$%
!! (I4) *(+, $%$"%-$%
(5 1< , $%$"%-$%
* (5'0 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H 9 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
H !* *(+, $%$"%-$%
( (* *(+, $%$"%-$%
4'M *!! 1< , $%$"%-$%
'!( 9(( *(+, $%$"%-$%
*' *(+, $%$"%-$%
H (4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
(!!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
(5 I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
H '! *(+, $%$"%-$%
! *(+, $%$"%-$%
'I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
N) *(+, $%$"%-$%
' !! ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
!+ I4* *(+, $%$"%-$%
! 1< , $%$"%-$%
&'!H ( !!, $%$"%-$%
Page 598
&( '!( *(+, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
*1H!0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
&<M' 1< , $%$"%-$%
*1M4!*' *(+, $%$"%-$%
!* *!! *(+, $%$"%-$%
0 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
< 4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
!!( ! $%$"%-$%
N *! *(+, $%$"%-$%
9 0 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
N 'H' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N('H4 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
M*!!O( 4! $%$"%-$%
*!!< ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N4! 6 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
!*H4 * *(+, $%$"%-$%
5 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
1' 1< , $%$"%-$%
' *(+, $%$"%-$%
& 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 599
II(1! 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
N * *(+, $%$"%-$%
())H4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
' 1 *(+, $%$"%-$%
& 14 1< , $%$"%-$%
4 >! *(+, $%$"%-$%
&( 1< $%$"%-$%
H H ; *(+, $%$"%-$%
N 'I(+ *(+, $%$"%-$%
&(0 !( *(+, $%$"%-$%
( M , $%$"%-$%
4 M 1 !!, $%$"%-$%
I I ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I ( ! $%$"%-$%
&55N(' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N( ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
H ' $%$"%-$%
9'O!! * *(+, $%$"%-$%
H (+ ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 4 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
* 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 1 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 600
'!! H!0 '( ' $%$"%-$%
*!* () *(+, $%$"%-$%
N((4 *(+, $%$"%-$%
H M!! 1< , $%$"%-$%
N( *(!!(0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
*! 4 $%$"%-$%
*1MM4!! *(+, $%$"%-$%
M*!!!* *(+, $%$"%-$%
N* 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
&< *( ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
M*!M( ( ' *(+, $%$"%-$%
( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I'! ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
* '! ' *, $%$"%-$%
N) !5 * '! 1< , $%$"%-$%
N < 1< , $%$"%-$%
(5 &! 1< , $%$"%-$%
H(55'H!( *(+, $%$"%-$%
I< ' 1< , $%$"%-$%
*( 1< , $%$"%-$%
' (!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
N (!' *(+, $%$"%-$%
Page 601
M( O $%$"%-$%
&!! 0 ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
< 0 *(+, $%$"%-$%
I *!0( *(+, $%$"%-$%
N?4!0(1 *(+, $%$"%-$%
'M ( *(+, $%$"%-$%
1< , $%$"%-$%
H M !( *, $%$"%-$%
* ! ( 1< , $%$"%-$%
Page 602
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:22 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
For Z-48-07.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 7:36 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
If this is passed, what are they planning to do about the traffic ? The weekends are already hard enough to get in and
out of the Arroyo Norte subdivision. Frontage road is always busy and the lighting is horrible at night.
Will there be a stop light put in ?
Will they widen frontage road ?
How will the tenants enter the new complex ?
We pay HOA fees to maintain Arroyo Norte road, will the tenants pay this as well ?
This should not be passed. There is plenty of area on the west side of the 17 to build on.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 603
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:13 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Allen
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:34 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Cc: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us
Subject: Application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
I am writing today in reference to application # PHO-1-21-Z-48-07 Arise Arroyo Norte where the developer has
proposed a high density apartment complex. I currently live in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, we are a small
community and take pride in the beautiful open surroundings. One of the reasons I recently moved to Arroyo
Norte was due it being a less populated area with plenty of open desert scape. This high density complex will
completely change that. I am asking you to please deny this application.
I have listed my concerns below:
This type of housing would put a huge traffic burden on the frontage road as well as our access in and out of
the neighborhood. There is also a potential safety hazard for emergency vehicle access when traffic backs up
on the frontage road as it normally does.
The development is in no way similar to the surrounding area. 600-900 sq.ft. white apartments with colored
doors does not fit in at all with the desert landscape or the 400k+ homes the development will be in front of.
How can they be considered “luxury” with the size and density they are trying to fit in such a small plot of land?
Concerns with use of Arroyo Norte amenities. Our parks and trails that are privately funded and cannot take on
the additional population that would in fact be using these amenities due to the small “open park areas” they
claim to have. There are no trails, playground equipment, etc., included within their gated community and
Arroyo Norte offers all that in an un-gated community a few steps away.
Concerns this will bring other high density housing to an area that does not call for high density housing.
Page 604
I do feel that the developer and attorney are trying to pull a “fast one” in getting this development pushed
through. Legally as I understand, they were obligated to only send 85 notices due to the zoning. Knowing what
they were proposing, why not try and talk to the community to hear concerns? As you heard last night, many of
us felt unprepared for the meeting with no notice. Most of the neighborhood did not receive any notification of
the development other than a well hidden sign you had to search for, almost like they were trying to deter
residents from seeing it. The attorney claimed he only heard a few concerns prior to the meeting, the reason
being is no one knew about the development.
This whole situation is very disappointing and concerning. Again, I ask that you to please deny this application.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Karen Allen
3737 W. Lapenna Drive
New River, AZ 85087
Page 605
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:57 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tara Bowe
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 8:26 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
tait@ttaitdevelopment.com
Subject: Application #PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Hello,
I’m hoping someone will read this and take consideration. I understand a lot may have already gone into this project, but
I don’t think enough research has been done.
I’ve lived in Anthem since June 2002. When I moved here there were no street lights and it was a cobblestone entry to
the water falls.
The growth has been amazing for many reasons, but there comes a point where it is too much. Traffic on Anthem Way
between Navigation and the Outlet Mall is a nightmare any time of day now. My daughter goes to pre school just on the
west side and I live off the frontage road, on the way to your planned new development. It should be a quick drive to get
her there and back to log on for work, but I get caught up in horrendous traffic both ways. Turning left onto Navigation
from Anthem Way (east bound then North bound) could take several cycles of the light. That problem will only get
worse with more people living that direction. It is one lane each way from Navigation all the way up to New River Road.
Not only is the traffic going to get substantially worse with this development, the overcrowding will affect the parks,
parking in our small town grocery store parking lots and restaurants, and resources. Us East side residents are footed
with a very large EPCOR water bill, while the west side is on Phoenix water. Adding more people to our already bogged
down infrastructure is simply not smart, not safe, and not fair.
Surely, this beautiful development could fit somewhere closer to town. Somewhere along the 303, for example.
Please don’t bring more constitution and congestion to Anthem. It was the most quiet, quaint little town when my
family moved here and we have slowly become overcrowded. Please don’t add to that. For the sake of the dream we
had for our family living here, to raise our children in peace.
Page 606
Tara Bowe
623-363-1274
Page 607
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:25 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Pho-1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:AndrewBrand
Sent:Sunday,March7,20219:18AM
To:SamanthaKeating
Subject:PhoͲ1Ͳ21ͲZͲ48Ͳ07Ͳ1
DearMs.Keating,Iama6yearresidentofArroyoNorte,thesmallcommunitylocateddirectlyadjacenttothis
rezoningproposal.IunderstandthereisapublichearingonMarch9at6:00p.m.Thisproposalwillaffectoursmall
communitymorethananyothercommunityinthearea.IwouldliketospeakonTuesdaywithyourapproval.
Evenafterover10yearsinexistence,ourHOAboardisstillunderthecontrolofourdeveloper,TerraWest/Starwood
landventuresuntilthefinal67lotsaresomedaybuiltupon.Unfortunately,thusfartheyhavenottakenanactive
interestinthebettermentorpreservationofthiscommunityanditsstrainedresources.Wehopetheywillshareour
interestsinregardtothezoningproposal,butwedonotyetknowifwecancountonthemdoingso.
Historically,residentssuchasmyselfhavehadtotakeituponourselvestodowhatwecantoinformallyfillthatrole.I
kindlyrequestafewminutestoexpressmyconcernswiththisproject.
Yourstruly,
AndrewBrand
3731WestLapennaDr.
NewRiverAZ85087
SentfrommySprintSamsungGalaxyS8.
Page 608
Page 609
Page 610
Page 611
April 19, 2021
Dear City of Phoenix Planners,
PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01, also known as ”Arise Arroyo Norte”, or “Arise North Phoenix,” is
scheduled for a public hearing before the Phoenix planning hearing officer on April 21, 2021 .
We, as residents and homeowners of the Arroyo Norte community, and as a neighboring
community to the proposal before you, stand together in firm opposition to the proposed, and
respectfully ask that the City of Phoenix reject said proposal on grounds which we see as critical
to the character, safety, and the long-term viability of our beloved neighborhood and the
surrounding area.
1. Character
Arroyo Norte is an independent HOA, consisting of approximately 230 homes and is located
immediately adjacent to the eastern border of the Arise proposal, with Anthem on our southern
border and undeveloped state land to our north and east. Our community lies in the foothills
north of Phoenix Proper, in an area prized for its wildlife, open spaces, richly diverse habitat,
and high quality homes. Located on Anthem’s northern border, Arroyo Norte was designed to
preserve and enjoy this unique and valued environmental setting, blending seamlessly with
Anthem’s design and commitment to open spaces, dark skies and an active lifestyle.
Anthem's award winning amenities, lush wash preservation, trail systems and open spaces
speak for themselves. Perhaps less known is the fact that as small as Arroyo Norte is in
comparison, we boast an exercise trail encircling our community, spacious parks, a massive
central grass park, and one trail that is particularly popular located adjacent to our richly
vegetated and largest wash. Truth is, no one would know they had left Anthem without being
told. It is a seamless transition and integration of our communities.
The PHO-1-21-Z-48-07-01 would be located right up against Arroyo Norte and Anthem, but it is
something altogether different than either one. We sincerely believe that the Application
before you involves a proposal that violates both the character of the surrounding communities
and the design guidelines set forth by Rio Vista Village. Ironically, the Arroyo Norte
community, like Anthem's East side, although not part of Phoenix, meets the Rio Vista Village
guidelines perfectly, whereas the Phoenix proposal before you, does not.
We have attended several Rio Vista Village committee hearings and have reviewed the plans
submitted by FDG acquisitions, and in short, we believe that the proposal fails to meet those
guidelines on a number of fronts, some of which are inevitable for a high density proposal
located next to a more dispersed low-density single-family community such as ours. We
maintain that the following items are in conflict with the Rio Vista design guidelines:
ࢂ Stipulation 1Gi: requires that at a minimum the structures are required to include
bricks and stones as well as other features to blend with the surrounding desert
landscaper and other homes in the community. The proposed elevations do not abide
the required stipulations.
ࢂ Guidelines:
ࢂ Dark Skies will be negatively impacted and the quiet evenings we would expect in
Page 612
this area will be interrupted.
ࢂ Wash standards are quite simply unaddressed in this proposal. Furthermore, we
inquired about the fate of the (unnamed) wash within this parcel and adjacent to
the West side of this proposal. This wash flows roughly from North to South, briefly
passing through the Firethorn community before entering the outlet mall drainage
system and continuing into the desert south of Anthem. We have created a 10
minute drone video showing the entire extent of the wash in question. This video
will be supplemented]
ࢂ Beautification and the trail systems are not included in the proposal. To the best
of our knowledge, FDG acquisitions has expressed no intent in terms of wash
preservation, beautification and the trail systems we have come to expect in this
area.
These are just a few of the outstanding items which we maintain are out of compliance. FDG
Acquisitions has agreed to address several other items which were clearly out of compliance,
including paint color and landscaping inconsistent with the surrounding area and the Rio Vista
design guidelines encouraging a natural desert environment. Even so, Arise is environmentally
and aesthetically sterile. It does not include nature areas or enhance those natural areas
surrounding it. And it certainly doesn’t match the character of our homes.
2. Safety
Traffic is part of this category. As stated previously, Arroyo Norte is located to the east of the
Arise proposal, at the terminus of Arroyo Norte drive. We are able to exit our neighborhood in
only one direction. Arise, and the Anthem Preparatory Academy (K-12 school with no bus
service) project just announced across the street from Arise, will together, add a massive
amount of traffic to our main road. All traffic from our community and both of these
developments get funneled onto the frontage road, which is just one lane in each direction.
This is a high-speed roadway with an already famously dangerous intersection at Arroyo Norte
drive with a history of high-speed accidents. This intersection was already dangerous. Any
additional traffic will add fuel to the fire.
Wildfires and traffic jams: If there was a single reason, Phoenix should reject this proposal, this
is it. The I-17 freeway backs up every single weekend in the warmer months and on holidays,
and several times a month comes to a complete halt as a result of accidents or wildfires. As a
result, these frequent freeway closures bypass traffic onto the same frontage road that serves
as our lifeline and escape route in the event of an emergency. Invasive grasses, climate change,
and increased human activity in the area have quickly escalated the fire threat. In addition, we
live in the foothills with unique downslope wind events from the North/Northeast. These wind
events are surprisingly strong and can be relentless in this area, lasting for days.
In other words, we are very worried that our only escape route will be choked with freeway
traffic when we need it most. Families here have a legitimate fear of a wildfire during a strong
wind event without the necessary road infrastructure to allow us to safely escape. Furthermore,
the traffic jams will prevent emergency personnel from reaching our community when we need
it.
Page 613
3. Community Resources
Arroyo Norte may look like Anthem, but instead of over 10,000 homes paying dues like Anthem
does, our expenses are split just 230 ways. Our dues, already exceed those of Anthem, and it is
already difficult to compete with their amenities, particularly their gym and pool which we do
not have access to. Furthermore, we have a much higher percentage of grass than Anthem
does, and without the reclaimed water infrastructure we would need to match them. In short,
we pay top dollar for our water, 75% of the dues we pay in fact go toward our parks and over
half of our budget goes toward watering our grass.
We maintain that the Arise proposal should not be approved without consideration of the
clear and direct financial impact it will impose on its nearest neighbor. Our community is not
gated and the Arise proposal is located right next to us with its ingress and egress 50 yards from
our 100% privately funded main park. If history is any guide, neighboring communities use
open parks, private or not, and with a high density rental unit without a single ball field,
basketball court or playground, it is unquestionable that our parks will be used by the tenants.
There are no publicly funded Phoenix parks or playgrounds anywhere near this proposal. In fact,
the Arise proposal is essentially on a city Island, surrounded by 100% privately funded parks in
Anthem and Arroyo Norte. FDG acquisitions will already benefit from cheaper Phoenix water
rates compared to the exorbitant Epcor rates Arroyo Norte residents pay. The idea that we will
end up effectively subsidizing this community with our parks, is grossly unfair.
Arroyo Norte residents have met with the developer’s attorney and have attended several Rio
Vista Village committee hearings. The developer has refused to make any good-faith offer to
even the playing field. They repeatedly emphasize their “large” central Park and backyard
grass. However, we would urge city planners to look closely at what this proposal really offers,
comb over the dimensions, and compare those amenities to those in Arroyo Norte and Anthem.
In summary, this proposal is out a line with this area. It will detrimentally effect the way of life
that the neighboring communities, such as Arroyo Norte, have come to expect and will present
an alarming fire hazard without an adequate escape route to both tenants and homeowners
alike. When considering impact fees paid to the city, please consider the community that will
truly be impacted more than any other--That is Arroyo Norte.
For the reasons listed above, and others not elaborated here above (such as inadequate parking
and other concerns), we oppose the Arise development in the strongest of terms. We cannot
accept the very real hazards based on the current state of inadequate transportation
infrastructure in the immediate area and beyond. We appeal to the sense of safety and
responsibility as your committee considers these issues. And should this committee decide to
proceed with this project despite the unsafe conditions for which you are now on notice, FDG
acquisitions should, at a bare minimum provide funding for an overhaul of the Frontage
Road/Arroyo Norte drive intersection. FDG should either pay for the use of Arroyo Norte parks
or for gates to protect our privately funded assets, which will now be exposed to a high density
development next door.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Page 614
Residents of Arroyo Norte.
Page 615
Danielle M Jordan
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 7:13 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Attachments: Photo_6553740_DJI_140_jpg_4690138_0_2021420185552_photo_original.jpg; Photo_
6553741_DJI_141_jpg_4332897_0_202142018564_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553754
_DJI_154_jpg_4283744_0_202142019630_photo_original.jpg; Photo_6553758_DJI_158
_jpg_4271088_0_202142019742_photo_original.jpg
One last supplement. These are photographs I took last night. Sorry these are coming in the final hours, but I'm just not
sure if the hearing officer is familiar with the area. This shows that we are essentially landlocked. No connections to
anthem.
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO
Date: 4/20/21 11:23 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
I can confirm that I have you registered.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2021 9:06 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: RE: Speaking request
I registered to speak yesterday morning. Can you let me know if you did not receive it?
Page 616
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
-------- Original message --------
From: PDD PHO
Date: 4/20/21 8:40 AM (GMT-07:00)
To: Andrew Brand
Subject: RE: Speaking request
Hello,
Please use the link on the attached agenda to register to speak.
Thank you,
Danielle Jordan,
Planner I
Planning and Development Department
Planning Division, Zoning Section
200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: 602-495-0383
Phoenix.gov/PDD
From: Andrew Brand
Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 5:48 AM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: Speaking request
Good morning Danielle. I wish to speak at the 10:00 a.m. hearing on the 21st. Agenda item number
2 Involving Arroyo Norte.
Thank you.
Andrew Brand
Arroyo Norte resident neighboring this proposal
Sent from my Sprint Samsung Galaxy S8.
Page 617
Page 618
Page 619
Page 620
Page 621
Danielle M Jordan
From: Rob Careway
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:56 PM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave
concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the
negative impact on our life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix
‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there
were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high
density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too
many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone
bedroom window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open
park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of
Phoenix residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail
which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex
has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo
Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact
the FDG Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the
notification sign between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners
to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition,
David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much
count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we
stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a
Page 622
weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve
Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and
increasing the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned
facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not
Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please
consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
Page 623
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:25 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Rob Careway
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:08 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Robert Careway, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s,
picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr
which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
Page 624
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Robert Careway
Page 625
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:46 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Chad Cox
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 10:17 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise arroyo norte aka tiny home “trailer park”
To whom ever it may concern, here are a few of my initial thoughts about this development.
170 homes if each home averages 2 cars each due to lack of public transportation, could result in 340 cars. If there are
only 250 or so parking spots this will end up like most rental complexes where tenants will have to park in neighboring
streets. This does not count for oversized vehicles, that will struggle parking and maneuvering in the
proposed neighborhood.
Epcor charges high rates for owners in arroyo norte. This also goes for all of our parks. Our HOA only seeds for summer
time now in order to save money. The parks being proposed in new development are not parks, people can not throw a
foot ball or kick a soccer ball without hitting a house or damaging property. This means people will use what they
perceive as thei arroyo norte park. The added traffic to the arroyo norte parks will increase the financial burden already
being experienced by arroyo norte residents.
weekends, holidays and accidents increase traffic on i-17 resulting in drivers getting off I-17 onto anthem way to
navigation way to gavilan parkway to frontage road to new river road. The four way stop at navigation / gavilan is
already unbearable. 340+ new residents will add to that.
I understand that the houses are rental and the space is classified as retail which means they wont be sold and should
not affect my home comps. However I am concerned about increased crime etc that come with lower income housing. I
am also worried that a poorly themed tiny homes like trailer park will be an eye sore to any one looking to buy a home in
arroyo norte causing the neighbor hood to be “a stable declining neighborhood” ultimately affecting our home values.
I understand that this neighborhood meets “Phoenix laws” , but the proposed neighbor is ridiculous in arizona where
there is so much space to spread out.
Page 626
Thank you
Chad Cox, Arroyo Norte Home Owner
Page 627
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:23 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise North Phoenix
Attachments: Screenshot_20210404-191703_Maps.jpg
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Tyler Estes
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:45 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Arise North Phoenix
To the Rio Vista Planning Committee,
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday.
It has been a sleepless night for me as I have processed the words spoken at the meeting yesterday evening.
I am a Millennial, aged 37, and am a high income earning one at that with 4 kids and probably a #5 in the near future. And I feel
like the government and bureaucratic agencies designed to protect my community, my home, my family, and my hard earned
dollars are failing us all.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Prepatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus directly across
the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that going to look with Carlines
and school events? You want to talk about Titanic? How is that going to sink when a natural disaster happens and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew already that there were "not enough lifeboats, not
by half"?
So let me understand this....the developer Vincent will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents
because they are childless millennials and baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing, and the developer focus groups told
them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30% higher rent to live
across the street from a SCHOOL? And will this developer also BAN children from living in their community? And if the answer is
"no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developers character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable"
community is without a playground because they don't want the expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across
the street. Ludicrous.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the southwwest side,
that's where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. And I see no consideration for that
on the site plans. So when a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs that normally turns Arroyo Norte Park into a small lake and
instead all that water goes towards Arise North Phoenix.....What then?
Page 628
No one has bothered to look at their apartment plans and point out the fact that there is no storage space in these tiny
apartments. No resident has a garage for their cars, toys, and stuff. They barely have closets, and the 1.5 bedroom unit is just a
extra "flex room" with no closet.
This developer knows full well what they are building and their true feelings towards my family, property, community, and quality
of life are absolutely clear. They are directly reaching into my life, and the lives of my neighbors, and extracting their pounds of
flesh to line their pockets with. They are a Judas Goat. They say that they have "luxury apartments" but that is pure marketing
hype. You can also have a "Luxury Wastewater Facility" and it will still smell the same as a non-luxury kind.
What I can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize and use
every means available granted to us by our Rights as citizens of the United States and citizens as of Arizona, to let our voices
be heard loud and clear. So that with our Speech we can dissade as many potential clients away from Arise North Phoenix as
possible.
Thank you again for your time.
Sincerely,
Tyler Estes
Page 629
Page 630
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 12:57 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise Approval
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Todd Flaming
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:50 AM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Arise Approval
Hello,
I am writing to express my disappointment with the way last night’s meeting was handled. I understand that this
job is thankless and hard, and that you are doing your best. But we were done a disservice last night. Several
residents, myself included, were using the previous meeting as a template for this one, and had our hands
raised for comment specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing about any changes to the Arise
plan (turns our there are none) before responding. In the previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and
this time they were ignored. In my opinion, there was far too much taking the developer’s word for things.
In our previous meeting with David, many concerns were raised and supporting facts presenting, all of which
FDG chose to simply ignore. This type of community will undoubtedly create serious congestion issues in and
around this neighborhood. One only has to look at the nearest similar communities - Elux in Tramonto and
Avanti Deer Valley - to see that this is predictable. Online reviews from residents complain of a number of
things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up parking in fire lanes and blocking
dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay for their spaces are never
able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At Arroyo Norte, we
don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood. David’s
suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there will be too many cars
- it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our
houses. So we have to be terrible neighbors and call the cops because FDG wants to maximize their profits
(make no mistake about why they used the word viable).
I tell only this one story to illustrate the dismissive attitude and condescension with which we have been met. It
shows that this entire process is one of sloughing off responsibility to someone else. Arise is fine with people
Page 631
parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for emergency
vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two years
ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of my house and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would have
meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact feels and sales tax revenue.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our
neck. They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we
supposed to card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no
concessions. They’re painting them brown. That’s the only real change they’ve made. They don’t want to be a
part of this neighborhood. They want to extract revenue from this neighborhood.
Who knows? Maybe Vince is right. In which case, he gets money and we get nothing. If he’s wrong, he still
gets money and we get our neighborhood negatively impacted with no recourse. The people with the most to
lose here have been given the least agency. It’s legal, but it’s not right.
The saddest part is that all of this was acknowledged by the committee and then they voted in favor of it
anyway. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s inconvenient, and
at worst it’s unsafe. What about that is worth approving? And how much longer were you going to spend
thanking these guys for having a couple extra zoom meetings and changing the paint color? Do you think that
when a kid crossing the street between parked cars to get to the playground gets run over, we’ll all say “but at
least those apartments are brown?” Shame on you.
Respectfully,
Todd Flaming
Page 632
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:51 PM
To: Adam Stranieri; Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Rina Forbush
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 12:37 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
PDD Fire Prevention
tmullarkey@anthemcouncil.com; dfermoile@anthemcouncil.com; mdemichele@anthemcouncil.com;
knorthcutt@anthemcouncil.com; pconley@anthemcouncil.com; sreeths@anthemcouncil.com
Subject: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC, Anthem Community Council
From: Richard & Rina Forbush, Arroyo Norte home owners
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing $SSOLFDWLRQ3+2=
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter.
We moved into Arroyo Norte in September, 2020 loving the neighborhood for the space and the quietness it
provides. The price to move in here was much higher than other houses we looked at within the Anthem/North Phoenix
area.
The building of this high density apartment complex is of grave concern to us and the other homeowner’s in Arroyo
Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style is obvious. We truly believe
this type of housing is not in line with the Rio Vista planning committee agenda. We find it troubling and unjust to place
a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
We would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC’s statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together.
Page 633
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom window and
will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to the Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt cause traffic issues and lead to parking on
Arroyo Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
)LUHVHUYLFHVZLOOFRPHIURP'DLV\0WEXWWKH\ZLOOQRWSD\LQWRLW
We are starting to get more and more input from property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG Acquisitions has
obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between two bushes and
NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe FDG Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with
such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’.
We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact
we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday.
Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
We find it hard to believe that an adequate traffic study was conducted on 3/10/21 – a DAY after the meeting we
had!! Who has the pull to get that done so quickly when we discussed in the meeting that it will probably take weeks to
get that scheduled in these Covid times. Obviously someone knows someone and this report will come back with ‘no
issues’.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
We respectfully request you to PLEASE reconsider such high density housing in this area. We did not relocate from high-
density New Jersey to buy an expensive home to be surrounded by a high density rental complex. Please consider
leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks
amongst other wild animals.
We thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Richard & Rina Forbush
-
Any tax advice in this e-mail should be considered in the context of the tax services we are providing to you. Preliminary
tax advice should not be relied upon and may be insufficient for penalty protection.
________________________________________________________________________
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the
reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to
the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
message and deleting it from your computer.
Notice required by law: This e-mail may constitute an advertisement or solicitation under U.S. law, if its primary purpose
is to advertise or promote a commercial product or service. You may choose not to receive advertising and promotional
messages from Ernst & Young LLP (except for EY Client Portal and the ey.com website, which track e-mail preferences
through a separate process) at this e-mail address by forwarding this message to no-more-mail@ey.com. If you do so,
Page 634
the sender of this message will be notified promptly. Our principal postal address is 5 Times Square, New York, NY
10036. Thank you. Ernst & Young LLP
Page 635
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:32 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: fuqua32001
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:28 PM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: New Arroyo Norte Concerns
To whom it may concern,
This is in regards to the recent application to build multi-housing units on the east side of the I-17 frontage road and
south of Arroyo Norte Dr. It has been brought to my attention that this is an apartment complex consisting of 170
units. That is a rather large density for this location. This will have very adverse effects on the current surrounding
neighborhoods.
To start the traffic increase to the I-17 frontage Road will be tremendous in itself. It is already being debated that the
frontage road is over used and not a safe passage of travel due to the current load placed on it. This will increase this
danger to extreme measures. The frontage road is already subject to multiple accidents from traffic, debris problems,
traffic jams on most weekends, and increased danger to pedestrians including elderly and children.
The next area of concern is the impact on the public safety of this area. Public safety including fire and police
department. That portion of land is City of Phoenix land that would technically be serviced by the City of
Phoenix. However, due to lack of resources and location of fire stations and police stations will have to be serviced by
the mutual aid system, now requiring a further extension of Daisy Mountain Fire Department resources and Maricopa
County Sheriff’s officers. These are all services that this development does not contribute funding to therefore not
Page 636
allowing for them to increase their responders to handle the impact. If per say an incident is happening in the new
multi-housing development and another incident happens in the Anthem or Arroyo Norte neighborhood; the response
time will be well past the expected and needed time to make an impact for life safety.
Another area of concern would be the impact on the private amenities. This includes the parks, playgrounds, hiking
trails, and private roads. The wear and tear of these things is payed for by the residents of the surrounding
neighborhood. It was stated that this new development will not be offering any types of extra amenities. This would
mean the new residents will be using the surrounding residential amenities. This has nothing to do with not wanting to
share, rather what is fair for the maintenance and addition to handle such an increase of individuals using these
amenities. The park at Arroyo Norte already has moments of being extremely full. With an increase of housing at this
scale the park will be overwhelmed.
Then we come to the amount of on street parking. This is always a huge concern when apartments are developed. The
current neighborhoods around this land do not allow for on street parking. Is this something the complex will pay for if
a current neighborhood resident is fined for when it is an apartment resident parking on the street?
Last concern at this time is the impact it will have on the utilities of the area. The current neighborhoods pay American
Water for water which is billed at a higher rate than the City of Phoenix. The neighborhood is at the mercy of American
Water on that price. This development now has to use American Water which is a for profit company. This new
development only pays City of Phoenix rates. Where does American make up the lost revenue. It is not fair for
American Water to lose revenue but it is also not fair to the current residents to have to make that up.
These are all current concerns that the surrounding neighborhoods have and that the city/county should also take into
account.
Thank You
Tre Fuqua
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Page 637
From: Samantha Keating
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
Date: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24:10 PM
Danielle,
Please see below correspondence for the above PHO case. I received a few others over
the weekend which I will send over shortly.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Tyler Estes
Sent: Sunday, March 7, 2021 11:05 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Comments: PHO-1-21-z-48-07-1
To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Resident in the Arroyo Norte neighborhood, which is the neighborhood adjacent to
the proposed location for Arise Arroyo Norte (Arise AN) apartment complex.
The rezoning of this land to residential use is of concern to me for the following reasons:
1. Starting in 2021 ADOT will begin the 5 year project to widen I-17 from Anthem Way to Cordes
Junction. To access Arroyo Norte Drive you must either exit I-17 southbound at New River Rd, or exit
at Anthem Way Northbound and go to the eastern side I-17 Frontage Rd/Gavilan Peak Parkway. On
many weekends as traffic on the I-17 becomes congested this congestion overflows onto the
Frontage Rd and Arroyo Norte drive becomes inaccessible. This always causes me great concern
because if Emergency Services are needed their response times will be severely impacted by the
overflow I-17 congestion. This problem is only going to become more acute as Phoenix continues
adding residents and those residents seek to access Northern Arizona via I-17, and as construction
and its inevitable delays occur the inaccessibility of Arroyo Norte Dr will only become worse . Risking
the lives of several hundred Phoenix residents at an apartment complex in such conditions is
irresponsible, and the City of Phoenix could be held liable.
2. Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 Frontage Rd is a dangerous intersection. The Frontage Rd is high
speed, and due to the proximity to I-17, the northbound traffic on the Frontage Rd appears to be the
traffic traveling on I-17 northbound. The speed of this intersection and the poor visibility in day and
Page 638
night driving conditions has led to numerous serious collisions. I would ask that the Council consider
putting in a provision if it is determined to rezone this space, for the developer to pay for a traffic
circle to be installed at the Arroyo Norte Dr and I-17 Frontage Rd intersection. This will slow down
traffic while maintaining traffic flow, and reduce the number of serious collisions at the intersection,
thus making it a safer intersection for potential Arise AN/CoP residents.
3. Arroyo Norte is in Unincorporated Maricopa County. Our water utility is Epcor Water. At present
the City of Phoenix has no amenities for the residents of Arise AN. Our community has a private park
located just a few hundred feet from the proposed location of Arise Arroyo Norte. There is no
realistic way that the residents of Arroyo Norte will be able to keep the residents of Arise AN from
utilizing our privately paid for facilities. After reviewing the plans of Arise AN they have almost no
green spaces for their residents. They have no park or playground, which is very out of sorts with
other builders in the surrounding area. Even the Bela Rosa Apartments (located at Anthem Way and
Navigation Way) are residents and Anthem HOA members with access to all Anthem HOA amenities.
Bela Rosa Apartments, which were originally built to be high end Condominiums, have playgrounds,
a community center, and green spaces for their residents. So Arise AN is very out of place when
compared to other developers in the area. Because the developer of Arroyo Norte chose to use
fresh drinking water from Epcor for watering the grass at our HOA park and green spaces we as an
HOA have MASSIVE water bills which are straining our HOA. We cannot absorb nor subsidize Phoenix
residents who have no easy access to CoP parks and recreational services and who will use our HOA
park instead. Causing wear and tear and well as damage to our facilities. If the council moves
forward with Arise AN then the developer of Arise AN must provide their residents with amenities
more in line with the surrounding communities. Such as a large community center, Park(s),
playground(s), exercise trails, and pay for the installment of a gate at the entrances to Arroyo Norte
to deter the usage of our private HOA facilities.
4. Arise AN is out of alignment with the surrounding communities. All of the surrounding
communities, whether it be the Anthem HOA, Arroyo Norte HOA, the soon to be built Circle
Mountain Ranch HOA, Tramanto HOA, etc all provide their residents with single family dwellings, and
amenities such as parks, etc. The construction of an apartment complex that is isolated from teh
surrounding communities and does not belong to a community HOA also isolates its own residents,
and alienates homeowners in the surrounding communities as such a facility will negatively affect
their own home values. That is not right. And the only entity that wins in that scenario is the
developer of Arise AN. The developer of Arise AN must seek out the boards of HOA's adjacent to
their proposed development and seek membership for its residents into those HOA's. And build the
apartments according to the guidelines of that community, with full access to their HOA amenities
for the residents of Arise AN since the CoP does not have any facilities nearby.
I thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
Page 639
Tyler Estes
Page 640
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 1:24 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: RIO VISTA VILLAGE PLANNING
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From:BobGallego
Sent:Sunday,March7,20211:08PM
To:SamanthaKeating
Subject:RIOVISTAVILLAGEPLANNING
DearSamanthaKeating:
One of the concerns that I have about the building of rental units is the amount of traffic that will be
added to Arroyo Norte Drive and the I-17 access road. On numerous weekends especially during the
long hot summer months there are traffic jams on I-17. Traffic then increases on the frontage road
which could prevent first responders from getting into Arroyo Norte development if there is an
accident, medical emergency, fire, etc. Just this past week there was a fatal accident just north of the
entrance to Arroyo Norte. A vehicle traveling north on I-17 left the highway and crashed on the
access road. The access road is only two lanes – one heading north and one heading south. Most of
the area between I-17 and the access road between Anthem Way and New River Road only has a
wire fence to prevent wild animals from getting on I-17. The wire fence is useless in the event of
serious traffic accidents Also I-17 narrows from three lanes south of Anthem Way to two lanes
heading north which also causes backups and increases the risk of accidents.
Bob and Gail Gallego
3822 W Abrams Dr
New River, AZ 85087
Page 641
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Sean Gates
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 9:19 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Thanks Will and Steve for Having Arroyo Norte's Back!
Thank you Will and Steve for Saying NO to a bad project that will have a negative impact on the north valley.
Good Luck Ozzie Finding Your Backbone for the next housing project, hopefully it will be built right next to
your neighborhood.
This is directly from the City of Phoenix's website about what YOUR JOB is as a member of a VPC...
The VPCs provide guidance on a wide range of city-wide and local issues and provide
RECOMMENDATIONS on these items to the Planning Commission.
TRAFFIC is a LOCAL ISSUE for our Arroyo Norte neighborhood!!!!! The right move was to VOTE
NO until ADOT, the city and county came up with a plan to deal with our traffic issues.
You didn't support us and thanks to you, traffic will be WORSE and our property values will decrease!
Sean Gates
Arroyo Norte Home Owner
Page 642
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:20 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Problems With This Proposal
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Dick Gates
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 6:18 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Problems With This Proposal
To: Mr. Virgil
Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning
From: Dr. Dick Gates, Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
First of all, is this a development that you would approve for your neighborhood next to your community?
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the
homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio Vista planning
committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not materialize. I find it troubling
and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities
east of I17.
Fire protection is a major concern as Phoenix city nearest fire station is a distance away.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other items we
are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too close
together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
Both Anthem and Arroyo Norte were well planned and provide a family atmosphere that reflects community stability
that is sadly lacking in this rental development.
Page 643
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom window will
not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to illegally
use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms, Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ
pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte Dr which
is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
1. Parking spaces are very inadequate- most families have two vehicles which if so, equals 340 needed spaces not
counting any visitors parking. This doesn’t take in account box truck deliveries either!
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign between
two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG Acquisitions is being
not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC attempted to reframe many serious
concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no
problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte
drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa
County. Why isn’t there an entrance off of frontage road like the extra lane for turning for the Bungalows on Jomax road
off of Frontage Road?
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as required. Has
this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing the size
of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter
street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as
we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. Dick Gates
Dr. Dick Gates
3728 W. Abrams Dr.
New River, AZ. 85087
rgates1943@gmail.com
225.573.9149 Cell
Page 644
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 3:32 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Laura Grob
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 2:58 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Laura Grob, Arroyo Norte homeowner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high-density housing, Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high-density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowners in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
lifestyle are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the
Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and
other items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units too
close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area. The outward appearance of the units does
not match the desert scape of the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone’s bedroom
window. These spaces will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix residents to
illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, walking trails etc. This complex has none of these.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will no doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo Norte
Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
Page 645
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts lead many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is not being forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County and include the high traffic times.
These apartments would receive service from Daisy Mountain Fire department but would not be paying to
support the fire department which also seems unfair.
In addition, we would like to review the archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this report been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high-density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities or pay to
install a gate on our neighborhood (one was not needed previously). Add enough parking to deter street parking.
Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Drive. Please consider single family homes of
similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert
space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great horn owls, red tail hawks and other wildlife I
see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
Page 646
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2021 7:58 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Laura Grob
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 5:12 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Arise North Phoenix - Rio Vista Planning Committee Case # PHO -1-21-Z-48-07-1
To:
The Rio Vista Planning Committee
Cc:Kate Gallego, Mayor of Phoenix
Terry Mullarkey, Anthem Executive Director
Thank you for your time and consideration yesterday at the Rio Vista Planning Committee meeting.
I have to say we are all very disappointed in the outcome.
Many of our concerns were not addressed as fully as they were during the first meeting. All of you were basically on our
side with our concerns and then last night most of you did a full 180 and voted for this proposal without further
traffic/fire/police studies. You said yourselves that this does not fit with the vision of the area; that at best it’s
inconvenient, and at worst it’s unsafe. Please explain again how no traffic study was needed but they did it at their own
expense by parking a truck on Arroyo Norte Drive on a Wednesday afternoon to count cars. Then a traffic analyst states
that she used calculations based on a traffic study handbook. Just last Saturday it took me 20 minutes to get off at exit
229 to get to Arroyo Norte. Weekend traffic backup pictures were sent to the committee by one of our homeowners
and obviously ignored as nothing was mentioned about it. Just last year we had a fire behind Daisy Mountain. If we had
to evacuate our area with all the additional residents, how would that work? How would the emergency service vehicles
get into our area? How many homes would be lost? Never mind the fact that if an ambulance needs to get into our
neighborhood on almost any Saturday afternoon in the summer it will be almost impossible and will take even longer
Page 647
with the additional traffic. Thank you to Will and Steven who voted no because they are nearby residents who feel our
pain and understand the traffic and safety issues we will be facing.
So, this leads us all to believe you were either enticed in some manner by the lawyer/developer, or you really don’t care
about our wellbeing. If the second is the case, then we will need to know who to complain to in order to get
remediation or to rectify anything that happens to us or our property within Arroyo Norte. It was even admitted that
emergencies were not considered in their traffic study.
In this meeting, many had their hands raised for comments specifically because we wanted to wait until after hearing
about any changes to the Arise plan (turns out there are none of any major consequence) before responding. In the
previous meeting, raised hands were called on, and this time they were ignored. That seemed deliberate. The developer
got to speak and was, frankly, condescending. We had no chance to rebut.
Were none of you aware that Anthem Preparatory Academy just announced that they are building a K-12 campus
directly across the street from the Arise North Phoenix proposed location? You want to talk about traffic? How is that
going to look with car lines for pickup and drop offs and school events? You want to talk about the Titanic sinking which
is what (I believe) Will had said? How are we NOT going to sink when a natural disaster happens, and emergency
services are needed? And what will be your moral culpability when you knew that you could have prevented the issue?
The developer, Vincent, will not have his community invest in playground equipment for their residents because he is so
sure that they are childless millennials and/or Baby boomers/Gen X'ers that are downsizing. The developer focus groups
told them they don't want playground equipment? So why then would such a target demographic want to pay 30%
higher rent to live across the street from a school? And will this developer also ban children from living in their
community? And if the answer is "no, we won't ban children" then what does that reveal about the developer’s
character and true intentions? Their "Barely Viable" community is without a playground because they don't want the
expense of it when the Arroyo Norte playground is right across the street and Anthem playgrounds are right around the
block.
No one has bothered to look at the wash that goes from the Northeast corner of the lot and transverses to the
southwest side. That is where water from our neighborhood currently overflows to when we have heavy rains. I see no
consideration for that on the site plans. When a big rain hits and the storm drain clogs which turns Arroyo Norte Park
into a small lake, the water will go towards Arise North Phoenix. What then?
There is no doubt that there will be a parking issue with 1.5 cars per unit. For a two bedroom unit, there will definitely
be 2-3 cars! How no one sees this issue is beyond me. Online reviews from residents in similar communities such as
Tramonto and Avilla complain of a number of things, but even positive reviews mention parking problems. Cars end up
parking in fire lanes and blocking dumpsters, spilling into the street. At Elux, one review states that residents who pay
for their spaces are never able to use their own spaces and are forced to park across the street at Home Depot. At
Arroyo Norte, we don’t have a Home Depot. There is no place for those cars to go except into our neighborhood or
along Arroyo Norte. David’s suggestion of putting up no parking signs does not create a solution to the fact that there
will be too many cars - it simply pushes them further into our neighborhood.
David’s response to this was to suggest that we call the police and have cars towed if they park in front of our houses.
So we have to have the burden of calling the police? Is that really how the police should be spending their valuable
time? Issuing parking tickets and towing vehicles? We don’t have that issue now and shouldn’t be forced to have this
issue in the future because not enough parking can be provided.
Arise is fine with people parking in our neighborhood, because it’s not their problem. They are fine with poor access for
emergency vehicles to their own tenants, because they are crossing their fingers that nothing will happen (about two
years ago we had a brush fire that came within 50 feet of Arroyo Norte Houses and a 10 minute delay for DMFD would
have meant lost structures). Phoenix doesn’t care about the burden on county infrastructure because they will get
impact fee and sales tax revenue. The Board asked about impact fees and was told by David he knew nothing about
them.
Page 648
Seems like some of the board members are using this area as a ‘test’ site to see what happens. They stated that they
will not vote affirmatively on the next site if this does not work out and items like safety and traffic are not taken
seriously. Why can’t those items be addressed BEFORE this development is built? We moved into this community in
hopes of having a safe environment for our retirement. Now we have to worry about ‘what if’s’ because a developer
had to line his pockets without doing all the leg work.
Nothing here is illegal. But it’s not right. Just because they have a good lawyer, DFG is allowed to stand on our neck.
They know that people will add wear and tear to our park and that it’s an unenforceable situation. Are we supposed to
card kids at the basketball court? They know that parking will be a problem and they’ve made no concessions. They’re
painting the houses brown to conform with Rio Vista Board recommendations. They also changed the name because
they shouldn’t be taking our name at all. That’s the only real changes they’ve made. They don’t want to be a part of this
neighborhood, but they want to leverage our neighborhood's resources.
What we can assure you is that if the agencies set to protect us continue to fail our neighborhood then we will organize
and use every means available to let our voices be heard loud and clear.
Sincerely,
Laura Grob
Arroyo Norte Homeowner
Page 649
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:48 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise High Density Housing
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Kelly Johnson
Sent: Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:51 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise High Density Housing
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Kelly Johnson, Daniel Rogers, homeowners in Anthem, AZ
Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. This high density apartment complex is of grave concern
to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and Anthem. The negative financial impact and the negative impact on our
life style are obvious. I truly believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’ or in line with the Rio
Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other factors that did not
materialize. I find it troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment complex with no City
of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. There are too many units
too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these.
Page 650
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will not doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from using privately owned facilities. Add enough
parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please
consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista. Please consider senior living as well.
Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is home and feeding area to the great
horn owls and red tail hawks I see on a weekly basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Kelly Johnson
Daniel Rogers
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 651
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:26 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Arroyo
Please see below.
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 1:06 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Arroyo
To: Rio Vista Planning Committee, City of Phoenix Planning, David Cisiewski, LPPC
From: Karen Lyons - Arroyo Norte home owner
Re: Arise Arroyo Norte high density housing
I would to first Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. I have lived in the Arroyo Norte community
for 8 years. The high density apartment complex is of grave concern to the homeowner’s in Arroyo Norte and
Anthem. The development will have a negative financial impact and the negative impact on our life style are
obvious. Based on the call march 9 2021, I don’t believe this type of housing is Not a City of Phoenix ‘planned’
or in line with the Rio Vista planning committee. When this property was zoned in 2007 there were other
factors that did not materialize. I feel it is troubling and unjust to place a City of Phoenix high density apartment
complex with no City of Phoenix resources or amenities east of I17.
I would like to highlight David Cisiewski, PLLC statements on the following items we believe are false and other
items we are in disagreement as stated in the 3/9/21 meeting.
1) This apartment complex is not in line with any plan or characteristic in the area. The white exterior does
not lend to desert landscaping. How many white houses do you see in any development in the area?There are
far too many units too close together. The units are much smaller than anything in the area.
2) There is no large park. According to the site plan, there are small grass areas next to someone bedroom
window will not provide their residents with the typical space or luxury of an open park.
Page 652
3) The amenities are inadequate to support the residents, which will ultimately lead City of Phoenix
residents to illegally use Arroyo Norte and Anthem’s privately owned parks and trail which provide jungle gyms,
Ramada’s, picnic tables, BBQ pit, basketball courts, etc. This complex has none of these. Please note the
Artoyo Norte community bears the sole HOA dues which and again are private parks.
4) Placing the entrance next to Arroyo Norte entrance will know doubt give problems to parking on Arroyo
Norte Dr which is against all the HOA rules in the area and lends to add to the traffic danger.
5) The name Arise Arroyo Norte gives the public the false perception this complex is part of Arroyo Norte.
I believe we are starting to get more and more input for property owners in the area, despite the fact the FDG
Acquisitions has obviously attempted to notify the minimal amount of people and place the notification sign
between two bushes and NOT facing traffic. These facts leads many of the homeowners to believe the FDG
Acquisitions is being not forthcoming with such an important matter. In addition, David Cisieski, PLLC
attempted to reframe many serious concerns to ‘Just traffic’. We can pretty much count on the private company
FDG Acquisitions hired to tell us there is no problem, despite the fact we stated traffic will be an issue on the
roads leading to the complex, not just Arroyo Norte drive on a weekday. Frequent traffic issues arise on
weekends and holidays. A traffic study should involve Maricopa County. I have experienced 1 plus hour
delays to either leave or return to My home. Also very concerning for police and fire to reach our Homes.
In addition, we would like to review archaeological survey report approved by the city Archaeologist as
required. Has this been completed?
I respectfully request you reconsider such high density housing by reducing the number of units and increasing
the size of units. Paint exterior desert color scheme, not white. Add adequate amenities to deter residents from
using privately owned facilities. Add enough parking to deter street parking. Place the entrance on the frontage
road and not Arroyo Norte Dr. Please consider single family homes of similar size and nature of Rio Vista.
Please consider senior living as well. Please consider leaving it open desert space as we can see this land is
home and feeding area to the great horn owls and red tail hawks we see on a regular basis.
Again, I thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Karen Lyons
Page 653
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 7:45 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Arise Complex
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: A G
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 11:04 PM
To: Samantha Keating
Subject: Arise Complex
Good evening.
I just wanted to write to you to echo all of the concerns my neighbors discussed in regards to Arise near Arroyo
Norte in New River. We cannot afford for others to use our facilities, it would bankrupt us as families and the
traffic is already awful anytime it’s a busy weekend or an accident happens and to add this much more the way
they have planned is irresponsible. I absolutely oppose this complex in it’s entirety.
Sincerely,
Mandy MacDuff
Sent from my iPhone
Page 654
Danielle M Jordan
From: A G
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 12:09 PM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: Arise traffic
Good afternoon,
I wanted to send in a few pics of traffic that we have been saying happens every weekend on the 17 at Arroyo Norte
area. They aren’t great but should show what we mean. This is actually much less than the worst as well and if possible I
will grab more shots. This is just a weekend surge without a wreck or something that makes it much much worse.
Thank you!
Page 655
Mandy
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
The link ed
image can not
be d isplay ed.
The file may
hav e been
mov ed,
ren amed, or
deleted.
Verify that
the link
points to the
correct file
and location.
Sent from my iPhone
Page 659
Danielle M Jordan
From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:57 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri; Julianna Pierre
Subject: FW: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
-----Original Message-----
From: Kirsten Myers
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:40 AM
To: dave@dclawaz.com; tait@ttaitdevelopment.com; lisa@dfgroup.us; Samantha Keating
Subject: Application# PHO-1-21-Z-48-07
I am writing to express my extreme concern regarding the apartments planned on the corner of the frontage
road and Arroyo Norte, as I live in the community and have for over 5 years.
1. As it stands, on weekends it is already a challenge to enter and exit our community due to the traffic on the
17 and the 100’s of cars that attempt to bypass it by going to New River road.
2. Additionally, the exit from our community is dangerous, especially at night, when the headlights from the
freeway are challenging to discern from those on the frontage road. Even without additional traffic a three way
stop would be a improvement.
3. Our HOA is already lacking in financial resources. Though the apartments are not part of our community, I
can guarantee that they will utilize our parks and trails. This will put an additional burden on our HOA, causing
our dues to increase in order to maintain/replace/water/landscape additional wear and tear/damage to our
facilities.
4. There is not enough parking for that many units. They will, inevitably, end up parking on Arroyo Norte,
causing a dangerous situation for those walking/biking/running.
I request one of the following occur.
1. DENY the application.
2. If that is a non-starter, then reduce the number of units, add additional parking AND add more amenities to
the complex, to limit the amount of people who come to our facilities.
Page 660
3. Develop it in a Senior Living center, as we do have an aging community, the two facilities in Anthem are at
capacity and there is additional need.
I would also like to voice my concern about the fact that my family was never informed about the hearing on
the 9th. We never received a notice in the mail, in spite of the fact that this will directly impact our community,
the value of our home and our access.
Kirsten Myers
623-826-4022
Page 661
Danielle M Jordan
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2021 10:30 AM
To: Danielle M Jordan
Subject: FW: Tonight’s meeting
FYI
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
-----Original Message-----
From: Ponsler
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 8:43 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Tonight’s meeting
Rio Vista Planning Committee,
“I’m going to vote ‘yes’ this time, but not next time” - Ozzie Virgil
Tonight, I listened as this committee stated that while they were concerned about the traffic, acknowledge the
safety implications to the Arroyo Norte Community, and discuss how this “luxury” high density housing unit did
NOT fit into the Rio Vista requirements, then vote to recommend.
Both Ozzie and Massimo made it very clear that this development didn’t fit, yet they would vote ‘yes’ this time
and then reevaluate as a committee so that this doesn’t happen again.
So my question is this, why does it matter next time, but not this time? Why does the safety and quality of life
for the next community matter, but the safety and quality of our community does not?
A response is greatly appreciated.
Ashley Ponsler
Sent from my iPhone
Page 662
From: Samantha Keating
To: Danielle M Jordan
Cc: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
Date: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:33:24 AM
Attachments: Traffic 2020 Facebook post.docx
Traffic 5-22-2020.png
Traffic 9-2016.png
Traffic 10-5-2019.png
Traffic 12-1-2019.png
FYI
Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Anthem Air
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2021 8:11 PM
To: PDD Rio Vista VPC
Subject: Rio Vista Arroyo Norte traffic.
I created a folder showing traffic issues in this location, by using Adots Facebook
page. ( word doc)
The traffic filters through Anthem and on to frontage road when I17 is backed up.
The residents will never be able to leave their subdivision.
Notice non of the pictures are on holidays or 3 day weekends.
Thank you,
Raymond
480-225-3546
Anthem Air Conditioning LLC
Page 663
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 19, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: The crash has cleared at Anthem Way, but traffic remains backed up.
UPDATE: There are now extreme delays on I-17 starting in Anthem where a crash is blocking all lanes.
Consider delaying travel or taking an alternate route such as State Route 87 north to State Route 260
west in Payson. SR 260 connects to I-17 in Camp Verde.
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · …lane remains closed. Continue to expect long delays from Anthem
northward.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB closed at New River
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 22, 2020 · Public · …the Valley. Heaviest traffic is in the Anthem area, but with moderate backups
through New River and Black Canyon. Drive safe!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Dec 26, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: Traffic is now flowing normally.
alerts.ping4central.com
Extreme delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 23, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic now flowing.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 backed up 15 miles.
Arizona Department of Transportation
Sep 4, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 7:45 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but continued to expect some pockets of
moderate-to-heavy traffic.***
alerts.ping4central.com
Expect heavy delays I-17 NB
Page 664
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jul 2, 2020 · Public · **6:16 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Except for a couple of pockets of slowing near Black
Canyon City, the severe delays appear to have eased on northbound I-17. We encourage all drivers to
use the free ADOT Alerts app, the AZ 511 app, and www.az511.gov to stay up-to-date on road traffic and
conditions. **4:56 p.m. Thu Jul 2** Delays are easing somewhat on I-17 NB ... but there is still a long
backup from Carefree Highway to New River, and near Black Canyon City as well. Please allow extra time
if you're heading north this weekend.
Expect long delays on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Jun 13, 2020 · Public · …BACKUP on I-17 northbound persists from near Anthem to near Rock Springs
for a non-blocking crash at MP 239.
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 NB delay near Rock Springs
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 22, 2020 · Public · UPDATE: These delays have eased. ------------------------------------------------ You can
see for yourself that traffic remains incredibly heavy between Payson and just south of Rye. If you are
planning on heading north, it might be best to put it off for awhile!
Arizona Department of Transportation
Apr 17, 2020 · Public · REMINDER: I-17 in Phoenix will be closed this weekend while crews apply asphalt
sealant to extend the life of the freeway’s pavement. The work will be done along I-17 SB on Saturday
and I-17 NB on Sunday in areas between 19th and Peoria. MORE: bit.ly/2RHJlCW
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
Aug 8, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE 3:23 p.m.: Traffic has eased, but with some continued moderate-to-
heavy delays between Black Canyon City and Sunset Point.*** NOW: Expect delays on Interstate 17
northbound past Black Canyon City.
Page 665
Arizona Department of Transportation
KĐƚϱ͕ϮϬϮϬͼWƵďůŝĐͼKD/E'^KKEdK/-17 near you: The new Diverging Diamond Interchange at
Happy Valley Road is scheduled to open to motorists in mid-October. It's a lot easier than you think!
#divergingdiamond bit.ly/36DwTwn
Arizona Department of Transportation
Oct 17, 2020 · Public · ROAD WORK REMINDER: Expect lane restrictions on I-10 between SR 587 and SR
387 for paving. EB and WB I-10 will be intermittently narrowed to 1 lane between 6 p.m. and 5 a.m.,
Sunday through Thursday for 3 weeks. Only one direction will be restricted at a time.
Arizona Department of Transportation
ϭϭϮ<ůŝŬĞƚŚŝƐരͼര'ŽǀĞƌŶŵĞŶƚKƌŐĂŶŝnjĂƚŝŽŶ
May 31, 2020 · Public · 11:19 p.m. All lanes are now open in both directions.
=============================================== 9:34 p.m. The left lane of I-17 northbound is
now OPEN bear Bumble Bee at milepost 248. The right lane remains closed due to the brush fire.
Continue to expect delays. =============================================== 7:26 p.m. I-17
northbound lanes are still closed near Bumble Bee. There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The
southbound lanes are open. =============================================== 6:30 p.m.
Northbound I-17 is closed near Bumble Bee; there is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 6:00 p.m. The northbound lanes of I-17
remain closed due to a brushfire; the SOUTHBOUND lanes are OPEN. (There is no estimated time to
open the northbound lanes.) =============================================== 5:32 p.m.
Northbound I-17 remains closed near Bumble Bee due to a brushfire; the southbound lanes have
reopened. There is no estimated time to open the northbound lanes.
=============================================== 5:08 p.m. The SOUTHBOUND lanes have
reopened; the northbound lanes remain closed, with no estimated time to reopen.
=============================================== 4:31 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 4:02 p.m. Both directions
of I-17 remain closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are
advised to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 3:30 p.m. I-17 is still closed in both directions
due to a brushfire (SB: MP 262; NB: MP 248). There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes.
=============================================== 3:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
Page 666
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) =============================================== 2:33 p.m. I-17 remains
closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at milepost 248 (near
Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin Road).
=============================================== 2:00 p.m. There is no estimated time to
reopen I-17, which is closed in both directions due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248 (near Bumble Bee); the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 262 (near Bloody Basin
Road). Alternate routes include State Routes 260 and 87, and SR 69 to SR 89 through Prescott. (Truckers:
Trucks are banned on 89 south of Prescott and 89A between Flagstaff and again between Cottonwood
and Prescott Valley.) Drivers are encouraged to postpone travel or use alternate routes.
=============================================== 1:33 p.m. Both directions of I-17 remain
closed due to a brushfire. There is no estimated time to reopen the freeway. Drivers are advised to
postpone travel or use alternate routes. =============================================== 12:02
p.m. BOTH directions of I-17 are now closed due to a brushfire. The northbound lanes are closed at
milepost 248, near Bumble Bee; the southbound lanes are closed at milepost 259, near Cordes Lakes.
There is no estimated time to reopen the lanes. The on-ramp at Bloody Basin Road will also be closed.
alerts.ping4central.com
Delays on I-17 NB/Bumblee Bee
Arizona Department of Transportation
Aug 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 5:04 p.m. Traffic has eased on I-17 NB***
alerts.ping4central.com
Traffic slow on I-17 NB
Arizona Department of Transportation
Feb 15, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: Traffic has eased on I-17 northbound.***
alerts.ping4central.com
I-17 north backed up 10 miles
Arizona Department of Transportation
May 2, 2020 · Public · ***UPDATE: 7 p.m. All lanes now open.*** ***UPDATE: Left lane open. Right
lane remains closed.*** ***UPDATE: I-17 NB is now closed at New River.***
Backups on I-17 NB near BCC
Page 667
Page 668
Page 669
Page 670
Page 671
Page 672
Danielle M Jordan
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:34 AM
To: Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc: Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:52 PM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : Salemlisa46@gmail.com
Comments : This is addressed to Will Hilton and Ozzy Virgil. Thank you sirs for bringing up the traffic issues at Arroyo
Norte. We have major issues with traffic daily not to mention on holiday weekends. Traffic is often diverted from the
highway to the Frontage Road causing major congestion on the Frontage Road. Their has been numerous vehicle
accidents exiting and entering our neighborhood.
Submission ID: 898e5f438366433da263c2cf4a756670
Form Submission On : 3/9/2021 6:52:19 PM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 673
Danielle M Jordan
From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:32 AM
To: Samantha Keating; Julianna Pierre
Cc: Danielle M Jordan; Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: cuZoning - Form Submission
Hello,
Please see email below.
JULIE GARCIA
Board of Adjustment Secretary III – Council Reporter
Phoenix Planning & Development Department
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
602.495.7029
From: no-reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:45 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: cuZoning - Form Submission
First and Last Name : Lisa Salem
Email : salemlisa46@yahoo.com
Comments : Good morning, I am a resident of Arroyo Norte Subdivision in New River. 85 residents where notified on
February 22, 2021 of a hearing regarding application PHO-1-21-Z-48-07. This was the first time that any of us had heard
there was a proposed rental community being planned/developed adjacent to our community. Although I do not have
an issue with the development itself, I do have an issue with the traffic pertaining to the development. The issues that
are occurring currently in our area pertain to the I-17 Frontage Rd at Arroyo Norte Dr. Holiday weekends and ongoing
accidents on the I-17 create gridlock on the Frontage Rd causing residents to be trapped in or out of our subdivision. As
well as, during the evening hours it is difficult to distinguish vehicles traveling on the Frontage Rd verses I-17. Adding
potentially upwards of 170 additional vehicles daily due to this development on the I-17 Frontage Rd will only add to the
difficulty of ingress & egress from Arroyo Norte Dr.
The meeting with the Rio Vista Village Planning Committee on March 9, 2021 resulted in the continuance until the April
2021 meeting. Recommendations by the Committee members were that the Developer have better communication
with the residents of Arroyo Norte and explore the traffic study issue. I applauded the Committee for hearing the voices
of the residents during this meeting and encourage the City of Phoenix to hear us as well. Please for the safety of all
parties require a traffic study for this development.
Page 674
Sincerely,
Lisa Salem
928-897-7330
Submission ID: a4986e69b9d34845815b0eec11e31928
Form Submission On : 3/10/2021 9:44:38 AM
Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd
This is Not Spam - This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.
Page 675
Danielle M Jordan
From: Schake, Robert - PHX
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 3:27 PM
To: PDD PHO
Cc: rdschake@gmail.com; Careway, Robert - PHX
Subject: Comments regarding Item #1, case (application) #PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Good afternoon,
As a resident of Arroyo Norte, I am against Item #1, Case #PHO-1-21—Z-48-07-1.
I understand these are supposed to be luxury apartments, but based on the location, I cannot believe anyone would pay
a higher price to live along an access road which fronts I17. I understand that my home, itself, would not seem that far
from this same road, but it is far enough into the development, if it matters.
With that being said on about what the true value of these apartments would be, I am concerned about this being rental
property, and bringing clientele that are only renting, versus owning, that close to our very close knit neighborhood.
We are not currently a gated community, so with this proposed apartment complex being at the head of our main street
in and out of our development, I can envision the following things happening if the developer would be allowed to
continue:
x Parking problems along both sides of Arroyo Norte
o This would cause traffic congestion for those residents, along with all of us that have homes within
Arroyo Norte
o Strong potential for vehicular and pedestrian accidents due to the parking, increased traffic, and those
walking
o Arroyo Norte is the MAIN road in and out of our development. Yes, there is also Circle Mountain Road,
but that is not deemed our main access road, and thus is not maintained in a sufficient manner for this
purpose
x Apartment residents using our park areas
o Apartment residents would be tempted to use our park areas with no responsibility for cost of
maintaining it, respecting it, or, picking up after themselves
o If their residents make use of our park areas, that takes away availability for us homeowners, who are
paying for it, to use our own areas
x Safety issues
o The Anthem area already has some crime, in regards to automobile break-ins and such, and general
vandalism
o The addition of these general-housing (again, not luxury) apartments could bring additional safety and
security issues for our neighborhood
x De-Valuation of our property
o I have great concerns of what such an apartment complex could do to the value of our homes. We have
invested a fair amount into our home, and property, and I am afraid that such development would have
a negative impact on home appraisals.
At the very least, if my opposition, and those of my fellow residents who also oppose, is not enough to stop this
development (but I hope it is), I believe there are a number of stipulations that should be addressed and agreed upon by
the developer before they are allowed to proceed. These are:
Page 676
o Developer responsible for gating of Arroyo Norte’s main access road (Arroyo Norte), as well as Circle Mountain
Road on the north side of our development. The design, products used, and builder for the gates would need to
be approved by Arroyo Norte neighborhood (a committee would need to be established to represent our
neighborhood, to coordinate review and ultimate design approvals)
o Gates are to restrict general access to our neighborhood, but mainly to restrict apartment residents
from using our park areas
o Developer responsible for ensuring NO parking allowed along Arroyo Norte, Circle Mountain Road, or basically
outside of their development plot.
o Perhaps ask developer to be responsible for the widening of the access road from the southern point of their
proposed property line, and north to the Circle Mountain Road entrance.
o Developer responsible for paying for installation of a traffic light at the intersection of Arroyo Norte and the
access road (the main entrance into our development).
Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter.
Bob Schake
3706 W. Teresa Drive
New River, AZ 85087
480-215-1988
rdschake@gmail.com
Caution: This email is both proprietary and confidential, and not intended for transmission to (or receipt by) any
unauthorized person(s). If you believe that you have received this email in error, do not read any attachments. Instead,
kindly reply to the sender stating that you have received the message in error. Then destroy it and any attachments.
Thank you.
Page 677
Danielle M Jordan
From: LISA THOMAS
Sent: Friday, March 12, 2021 4:41 PM
To: PDD PHO
Subject: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Re:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and Arroyo Norte Drive
Danielle Jordan,
I am a homeowner at Arroyo Norte. I’ve been living here in this quiet community since 2015. I am writing to you to advise of
my opposition to this proposal to have 170 very small apartments built so close to my home and my community. These
apartments will cause a great deal of overcrowding, congestion, high volumes of traffic, noise and light pollution, as well as
create a real danger for many of the young children that live in this community.
The proposed apartments would be built entirely too close to our existing community, creating the illusion to the renters that
they are actually a part of this community, but in reality they would not be. Allowing the name of our community Arroyo
Norte to be used by the proposed apartments further creates the illusion that they are a part of this community and they are
not. They will be led to believe they can use our private parks, and private trails, and park their cars and trucks along our
community streets because there will not be enough room for parking their vehicles inside their gated complex of 170 tiny
apartments.
In addition the entry and exit for the proposed apartments is too close to existing homes and entirely too close to the main
park and playground for our children. Why not make the entrance on Frontage Road? That would make it much safer if for
some reason these apartments are approved. It would be much safer for the children and it would lessen the illusion that the
renters are a part of this community. If would also be beneficial if an emergency vehicle had to get into that
apartment complex because of a fire or other hazard. That is just way too many small apartments to be crammed into a very
small area. It’s a disaster waiting to happen. And should there be a fire in those apartments our community would be put at
risk because the proposal is to place them entirely too close to our existing homes.
There was a fire just north of our community back in the summer of 2019. It was on the BLM land just north of Circle
Mountain Drive that borders our community. The day of the fire, residents of this community were not able to get back into
our community from the Frontage Rd coming from Anthem. The road was backed up for miles and for hours and residents
were forced to leave their cars along the Frontage Road and walk home in the hot sun. What if there was another emergency
where someone had to get in to rescue someone at their home for a medical emergency? Residents could not get back to
their homes. Elderly parents were left home alone for hours, people could not get home to their pets. Residents were told to
go hang out at Starbucks until the fire was put out. There was no evacuation but imagine if there was? My point is that with
more people and more cars here Arroyo Norte Drive will not be able to handle the traffic and the congestion.
Weekends are even worse, when people are traveling up North. Travelers think Frontage Rd is a cut thru and a way out of the
bumper to bumper traffic on 1-17. It’s hard enough now to get to the grocery store on a weekend, or to run out to Urgent
Care. Imagine how dangerous it will be with 170 more small apartments with at least that many more cars,
but realistically probably double the amount of cars.
Page 678
Building these apartments would ruin our community in more ways than one and I want you to know that I oppose them
100%. When I moved here, I was told if anything would be built on that lot it would be something commercial, but I was
assured it would not be residential, and no people would be living there.
I hope you consider my concerns and vote against these apartments.
Thank you for your time,
Lisa Thomas Arroyo Norte Homeowner
516-527-0317
Page 679
Attachment C
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
June 3, 2021
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: PHO-1-21--Z-48-07-1
Location: Approximately 400 feet east of the southeast corner of I-17 and
Arroyo Norte Drive
Request: 1) Submittal of conceptual site plan and elevations for approval
by the Planning Hearing Officer per Stipulation 1.
2) Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a
comprehensive sign plan.
3) Technical corrections to Stipulations 3 and 7.
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 16.0
Applicant: Law Office of David Cisiewski
Owner: Tom Tait, AV 203 LLC
Representative: Lisa Gage, FDG Acquisitions
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval with a modification and additional stipulations, as
recommended by the Planning Hearing Officer.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Rio Vista 3/9/2021 Continued. Vote: 5-0.
4/13/2021 Approval. Vote: 4-2.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: Approval, with a modification and additional
stipulations.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Planning Hearing Officer’s
recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve PHO-1-21—Z-48-
07-1, per the Planning Hearing Officer recommendation with an additional stipulation to
require a minimum of two separate public pedestrian pathways, shaded to a minimum of
75 percent, to be provided from the closest parks in the development and connecting to
North Whisper Lane on the south and Arroyo Norte Drive on the north.
Maker: Busching
Second: Howard
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Gorraiz
Opposition Present: Yes
Page 680
Findings:
1. The original rezoning case contemplated development of the site with
commercial uses. As there were no site plans or elevations included in the
original application, it was unknown at the time how the site would ultimately
develop, what specific uses would be implemented, and the scale and intensity
of future development. Therefore, Stipulation 1 was adopted to require
Planning Hearing Officer review through the public hearing process once these
became available. However, this stipulation did recognize that the site may
develop with residential uses as permitted in the approved C-2 zoning
designation. Stipulation 1.f directly addressed this by establishing criteria for
mitigating impacts of the I-17 on potential residences.
The proposed conceptual site plan in this request depicts a 170-unit multifamily
complex consisting of single-story bungalow-style residences. The proposed
density is 12.2 dwelling units per gross acre, which is less than the 17.40
dwelling units per gross acre permitted in the R-3 PRD development option
with bonus points. The proposed height is less than the two stories and 30
feet permitted in the R-3 PRD development option. Proposed open space is
approximately 1.18 acres or 7.4 percent of the gross site area, which is greater
than the minimum 5 percent required. The proposed residences are detached
stand-alone units rather than a traditional multifamily apartment complex. The
scale and intensity of the proposal is appropriate for its location along the I-17
freeway corridor, consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan Land
Use map designation, and creates a buffer between existing single-family
development to the east, adjacent commercial zoning, and the I-17 freeway
corridor.
2. Stipulations 1.a through 1.g established specific criteria regarding the review of
the site plan and elevations. General conformance to the proposed conceptual
site plan and elevations is recommended as discussed in these findings.
3. Stipulation 1.a requires architectural consistency in the elevations regarding
building mass, building style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage. This
stipulation was originally intended to address the potential development of the
site with multiple commercial uses. With the conversion of this stipulation to
general conformance for the proposed residential development, these
concerns are not wholly relevant. However, the residential elevations do
provide an appropriate level of consistency while still providing for architectural
diversity with three home styles. Architectural features include multiple window
styles, decorative window treatments, gable ornamentation, use of accent
colors, and varied rooflines.
4. Stipulation 1.b requires the use of finishing materials that are appropriate for a
desert context. This includes the use of Spanish style terracotta roof tiles.
Primary building colors include neutral whites and grays in stucco. Accent
colors are limited to front doors.
5. The applicant submitted revised building elevations and a revised color palette
intended to address concerns raised during public outreach regarding the
Page 681
compatibility of the color palette on the initial elevations submitted with the
request. These initial elevations included yellow, blue, and red accent doors
and a Mediterranean palette. However, the revised elevations were limited to
single-perspective renderings, did not incorporate the new door colors on the
revised palette, and did not include the level of detail on the four-sided
elevations in the original submittal. Therefore, an additional stipulation is
recommended that addresses the use of colors that blend with the desert
environment, prohibiting reflective materials, and limiting accent colors. The
revised color palette date stamped April 20, 2021 would conform with this
stipulation. However, the stipulation is intended to allow staff flexibility in
reviewing the final palette as there is no building elevation that depicts all the
appropriate colors in a single image.
6. Stipulation 1.f requires special consideration for residential uses regarding
mitigating impacts of the I-17. It addresses four conditions that are addressed
in the applicant’s submittal as follows:
a. Innovative Site Design – Vehicular access to the community is
located along Arroyo Norte Drive, not along the I-17 frontage road,
which will allow a continuous perimeter wall along the west property
line. No units front the west property line and there are private yards
located along this area.
b. Increased Setbacks – The proposed site area is not adjacent to the I-
17 frontage road. There is an approximately 500-foot setback between
the I-17 and the closest unit. This area includes a remaining large
parcel, subject to the stipulations of this case, and an approximately 70-
foot wide drainage channel.
c. Sound barriers – A six-foot split-faced CMU wall is proposed along the
west perimeter property line. Additionally, as the subject property does
not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road, the closest
unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-17.
d. Increased Landscaping – The conceptual landscape plan depicts a
variety of large and medium canopy shade trees along the west
property line in open spaces. Trees include a variety of acacia, willow,
oak, and ash. However, the majority of the west property line consists
of private yards and trees are not depicted. The fact that the subject
property does not contain the parcel adjacent to the I-17 frontage road
and the closest unit will be setback approximately 500 feet from the I-
17 reduces the concern regarding enhanced landscaping standards in
this area. The property is subject to existing Ordinance standards for
landscaping in multifamily developments. The remaining parcel
between this site and the I-17 will remain subject to this stipulation and
landscaping will be reviewed during a future PHO hearing for these
plans.
7. Stipulations 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g addressed specific considerations that were
relevant to the original vision of the site developing with multiple commercial
users. Regarding Stipulation 1.g, the majority of the considerations are
Page 682
reflected in the conceptual elevations and the recommendation for general
conformance.
8. Stipulation 2 regarding approval of a comprehensive sign plan was relevant to
the assumption in the original rezoning case that the site would develop with
multiple commercial uses. This requirement is not relevant to the development
of the site with a single multifamily development. The applicant’s request to
modify this stipulation is recommended to be approved with a modification to
the standard language to specify that this requirement is only relevant to
development proposals for commercial land uses.
Stipulations:
1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
Services Department preliminary site plan approval. The site plan(s) and
elevations shall include the following:
THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED JANUARY 28, 2021, WITH
SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
a. Elevations which provide architectural consistency in building mass
and style, wall treatments, lighting, and signage.
BUILDING AND WALL COLORS SHOULD BE MUTED AND BLEND
WITH RATHER THAN CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
DESERT ENVIRONMENT. REFLECTIVE MATERIALS SHOULD
NOT BE USED. ACCENT COLORS SHOULD BE USED
JUDICIOUSLY AND WITH RESTRAINT.
b. The primary finishing materials for buildings shall consist of natural
desert materials or materials which are appropriate for the natural
desert context.
A MINIMUM OF TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAYS, SHADED TO A MINIMUM OF 75 PERCENT, SHALL
BE PROVIDED FROM THE CLOSEST PARKS IN THE
DEVELOPMENT AND CONNECTING TO NORTH WHISPER LANE
ON THE SOUTH AND ARROYO NORTE DRIVE ON THE NORTH.
c. Drive-thru facilities shall be oriented so that drive-thru windows are not
directly visible from adjacent public streets.
d. Landscaping, arcades, or overhangs which provide shaded walkways
shall be utilized.
e. That parking areas shall be designed with landscaped areas to break
up the large expanses of parking.
Page 683
f. Special consideration shall be given to site design for residential uses
to adequately mitigate the impacts of the proximity to Interstate 17,
such as innovative site design, increased setbacks, sound barriers,
and increased landscaping.
g. An architectural plan shall be approved with the elevations. The
architectural plan shall convey a sense of continuity throughout the
development and at a minimum include the following:
i) Natural accent materials such as brick, stone, or tile for
buildings and signage.
ii) Architectural detailing such as recesses, pop outs, shade walls,
parapets, artistic insets, or pilasters.
iii) Street appurtenances such as benches, seat-walls, ramadas,
shade structures, trash enclosures, lighting and wayfinding
signage.
iv) Detail sections for screening and perimeter walls as well as
walls interior to the site; said walls shall be designed and
finished with materials similar to those of the buildings’
architectural detailing.
2. That FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USES, a comprehensive sign plan for the
entire property shall be approved by the Zoning Administrator FOR THE
ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance prior to Development Services Department final site plan approval
for the first phase of development.
3. That Twenty-five feet of right-of-way shall be dedicated for the south half of
Teresa Lane or as otherwise approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.
4. That Additional right-of-way shall be dedicated for the future expansion of the
freeway/frontage road as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
5. That 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 or
modified by the Street Transportation Department.
6. That The applicant shall submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading. Further
archaeological monitoring and/or testing (trenching) may be necessary based
on the results of the survey.
7. That The following persons, organizations and associations shall be notified
by the applicant at least 15 days before the meeting or hearing of any
Page 684
PLANNING AND Development Services Department preliminary site plan
meetings; Zoning Adjustment hearings; or Planning Hearing Officer hearings:
a. New River Desert Hills Community Association, Inc.
515 E. Carefree Highway, #300
Phoenix, AZ 85085-8839
b. Shareen Goodroad
scgoodroad@msn.com
623-742-0150
c. Terry Marron
t.marron@yahoo.com
623-587-7039
8. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER
SHALL EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN A FORM
APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. 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 685
Attachment D
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
July 1, 2021 (10:00 a.m.)
APPLICATION NO/ PHO-1-21--Z-48- (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION 07-1 opposition x applicant
Approximately 400
feet east of the
southeast corner of
I-17 and Arroyo
Norte Drive
(I-17 Frontage and
Theresa Lane)
Phoenix, AZ 85013 PC 6/3/2021 46026 North 35th Avenue
New River, Arizona 85087
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC 7/1/2021 Richard Zimmerman
HEARING (10:00 a.m.) 602-527-6938
Ballininphx@yahoo.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Development is not harmonious with the area. Streets infrastructure cannot support this
development. This development is a fatality on the frontage road waiting to happen. City of
Phoenix has not done their research in regard to streets infrastructure. This development
posts a major public safety hazard.
RECEIVED BY: Greg Harmon RECEIVED ON: 6/9/2021
Alan Stephenson Ra’Desha Williams
Joshua Bednarek Village Planner
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO ADD-ON (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** First Things First Family
Resource Centers - Contract Extension (Ordinance S-47833)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to exercise the third
option to extend the term of Intergovernmental Agreement 148132 (IGA) with First
Things First for an additional year through June 30, 2022 to support Phoenix Families
First Resource Centers in current City facilities. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item. The contractual, grant-funded annual amount is $675,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund.
Summary
The Human Services Department and Youth and Education Office entered into an IGA
with First Things First in July 2018 to create four Family Resource Centers in current
City facilities controlled by the Library, Housing and Parks and Recreation
departments. The Phoenix Families First Resource Centers increase families' access
to concrete support and services in times of need; improve knowledge of parenting
and child development; foster parental resilience and successfully connect families to
support in the community; and promote social and emotional competence in children.
Family Resource Centers serve as safe, accessible community hubs and provide
flexible, family focused, and culturally responsive information, resources, and services
covering a wide range of topics. Staff are available to help families access these
resources and services and offer referrals to programs designed to meet their diverse
needs.
Contract Term
The first contract year term started July 1, 2018, with three additional one-year options
to renew, for a total of four years. The fourth and final contract year will start July 1,
2021.
Financial Impact
The contractual, grant-funded annual amount of $675,000 supports staff, supplies, and
site costs for implementing Family Resource Centers in City facilities. There is no
impact to the General Fund.
Page 689
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was approved by Formal Council action on April 4, 2018.
Location
Goelet A.C. Beuf Community Center - 3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Road
Burton Barr Central Library - 1221 N. Central Ave.
Cesar Chavez Library - 3635 W. Baseline Road
Aeroterra Housing Community - 675 N. 16th St.
Council Districts: 1, 7, and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Youth and
Education Office.
Page 690
Page 691
Resource Centers - Contract Extension (Ordinance S-47833)
Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to exercise the third
option to extend the term of Intergovernmental Agreement 148132 (IGA) with First
Things First for an additional year through June 30, 2022 to support Phoenix Families
First Resource Centers in current City facilities. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item. The contractual, grant-funded annual amount is $675,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund.
Summary
The Human Services Department and Youth and Education Office entered into an IGA
with First Things First in July 2018 to create four Family Resource Centers in current
City facilities controlled by the Library, Housing and Parks and Recreation
departments. The Phoenix Families First Resource Centers increase families' access
to concrete support and services in times of need; improve knowledge of parenting
and child development; foster parental resilience and successfully connect families to
support in the community; and promote social and emotional competence in children.
Family Resource Centers serve as safe, accessible community hubs and provide
flexible, family focused, and culturally responsive information, resources, and services
covering a wide range of topics. Staff are available to help families access these
resources and services and offer referrals to programs designed to meet their diverse
needs.
Contract Term
The first contract year term started July 1, 2018, with three additional one-year options
to renew, for a total of four years. The fourth and final contract year will start July 1,
2021.
Financial Impact
The contractual, grant-funded annual amount of $675,000 supports staff, supplies, and
site costs for implementing Family Resource Centers in City facilities. There is no
impact to the General Fund.
Page 689
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was approved by Formal Council action on April 4, 2018.
Location
Goelet A.C. Beuf Community Center - 3435 W. Pinnacle Peak Road
Burton Barr Central Library - 1221 N. Central Ave.
Cesar Chavez Library - 3635 W. Baseline Road
Aeroterra Housing Community - 675 N. 16th St.
Council Districts: 1, 7, and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Youth and
Education Office.
Page 690
Page 691
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
119 item(s)