← Back to meetings

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2022-01-05 complete

2022-01-05 · Formal Meeting

Items: 102

Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Summary
This item transmits recommendations from the Mayor and Council for appointment or
reappointment to City Boards and Commissions.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the Mayor's Office.




Page 11
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: January 5, 2022
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

The purpose of this memo is to provide recommendations for appointments to the
following Boards and Commissions:

Community Development Review Committee

I recommend the following for appointment:

Laura Bulluck
Ms. Bulluck is the CEO of Hope’s Crossing and a resident of District 4. She fills a
vacancy and will serve as a representative of the Human Services Commission for a
term to expire June 30, 2023.

Tamala McBath
Ms. McBath is the CEO of Dress for Success and a resident of District 7. She replaces
Audrey Jenkins and will serve as a representative of the Human Services Commission
for a term to expire June 30, 2023.

Human Services Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Laura Bulluck
Ms. Bulluck is the CEO of Hope’s Crossing and a resident of District 4. She will serve as
a Category III representative for a term to expire June 30, 2023.

Tamala McBath
Ms. McBath is the CEO of Dress for Success and a resident of District 7. She will serve
as a Category III representative for a term to expire June 30, 2023.




Page 12
Phoenix Arts and Culture Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Fernando Hernández
Mr. Hernández is the owner of Testal in District 7 and a teacher at Phoenix Center for
the Arts. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire September 30, 2024.

Phoenix Employment Relations Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Gregory Fretz
Mr. Fretz serves as Chair of the board and will serve his fourth term to expire December
15, 2024.




Page 13



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Dao Kitchen

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163496.

Summary

Applicant
Qiaoye Chen, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
34455 N. 27th Drive, Ste. D160-162
Zoning Classification: C-2 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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 21, 2022.

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 14


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am committed to upholding the best standards for alcohol sales. All our staff will be
trained in legal and responsible sales.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“our business will offer guest a comfortable dinning experience.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Dao Kitchen
Liquor License Map - Dao Kitchen

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




Page 15
Page 16
Liquor License Map: DAO KITCHEN
34455 N 27TH DR




Ü
Date: 11/24/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 17



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Over Easy

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207B223.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
10637 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 101A
Zoning Classification: C-1, C-2
Council District: 3

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 22, 2022.

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 18

applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws and ensure staff is fully trained.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 19



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Uncle Bear's Grill and Tap

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 169250.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
10625 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 150
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 may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 15, 2022.

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

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


Page 20


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 train all of our employees in responsible liquor service. We also 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 offer our patrons of age, the option of purchasing an adult
beverage with their meal if they choose to have one."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Uncle Bear's Grill and Tap
Liquor License Map - Uncle Bear's Grill and Tap

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




Page 21
Liquor License Data: UNCLE BEARS GRILL AND TAP
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 10 7


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 22.50 37.79

Violent Crimes 9.21 1.83 3.29

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 14

Total Violations 95 17




Page 22
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032081 1605 97 % 10 % 12 %

1032083 885 93 % 10 % 0%

1032092 970 69 % 24 % 27 %

1032093 1766 93 % 17 % 2%

1032094 1796 71 % 20 % 9%

1050032 1980 98 % 12 % 10 %

1051012 1805 94 % 8% 7%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 23
Liquor License Map: UNCLE BEARS GRILL AND TAP
10625 N TATUM BLVD




Ü
Date: 11/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 24



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Brophy College Preparatory

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

Summary

Applicant
Julie Peterson

Location
4701 N. Central Ave.
Council District: 4

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 12, 2022 - 5 p.m. to 9 p.m. / 400 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 25



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - St. Mary's Roman Catholic High School Phoenix

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

Summary

Applicant
Patricia Hollerbach

Location
2525 N. 3rd St.
Council District: 4

Function
Silent Auction

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 9, 2022 - 3 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 200 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 26



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Lou Malnati's Pizzeria

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207A539.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
100 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 152
Zoning Classification: C-2 TOD-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 14, 2022.

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

Lou Malnati's Pizzeria (Series 12)
17787 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix


Page 27

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, or have been,
trained in the techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 28



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - The Nio Market

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 169396.

Summary

Applicant
Rohan Pasricha, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2902 N. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine 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 Jan. 16, 2022.

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 29


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am running the gas station business selling liquor such as beer/wine from the last 2
years at another one location.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Because I am very responsible businessman always obeys the laws and believe in
community service."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - The Nio Market
Liquor License Map - The Nio Market

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




Page 30
Liquor License Data: THE NIO MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 7 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 13 6

Restaurant 12 5 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 96.94 134.18

Violent Crimes 9.21 19.98 34.07

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 94

Total Violations 95 131




Page 31
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1106002 1339 64 % 17 % 24 %

1106004 1456 47 % 27 % 3%

1107011 887 13 % 17 % 33 %

1107012 1519 40 % 19 % 29 %

1116021 814 0% 42 % 73 %

1116023 1963 21 % 19 % 82 %

1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %

1117004 1227 75 % 20 % 21 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 32
Liquor License Map: THE NIO MARKET
2902 N 16TH ST




Ü
Date: 11/18/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 33



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Speedway #3

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170612.

Summary

Applicant
Jarjis Hallak, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1943 E. Oak St.
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 23, 2022.

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 34

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.

Payless Market 2 (Series 10)
11021 N. 19th Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 8
Liquor license violations: None

Payless Market (Series 10)
405 S. Arizona Ave., Chandler
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am capable, qualified and reliable to hold a liquor license as I currently own two
other convenience stores where I sell beer and wine. I implement policies to ensure
that my employees are familiar with liquor laws & check identification to prevent sales
to underage and obviously intoxicated customers. I have not had liquor violations at
my other stores.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location is currently licensed with a beer and wine liquor license. I will be taking
over the store on January 1, 2022 to continue to provide convenient household items,
& beer and wine to the neighborhood instead to having to drive to big box stores for
necessities. I will comply with city, state and county laws and work to build a good
relationship with the 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.


Page 35


Attachments
Liquor License Data - Speedway #3
Liquor License Map - Speedway #3

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




Page 36
Liquor License Data: SPEEDWAY #3
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 9 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0

Liquor Store 9 7 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 15 3

Restaurant 12 15 0

Craft Distiller 18 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 111.94 80.36

Violent Crimes 9.21 26.16 18.68

*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 77

Total Violations 95 129




Page 37
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1116011 1492 55 % 13 % 39 %

1116012 1200 65 % 11 % 40 %

1116021 814 0% 42 % 73 %

1116022 2607 54 % 9% 61 %

1116023 1963 21 % 19 % 82 %

1117001 1792 45 % 32 % 41 %

1117002 1243 39 % 12 % 28 %

1133001 2490 40 % 12 % 49 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 38
Liquor License Map: SPEEDWAY #3
1943 E OAK ST




Ü
Date: 11/29/2021
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 - Special Event - SS. Simon & Jude Roman Catholic Cathedral
Phoenix

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

Summary

Applicant
Phillip Lester

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

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 26, 2022 - 5 p.m. to Midnight / 500 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 40



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Courtyard Phoenix West Avondale

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 166356.

Summary

Applicant
Joanne Feinstein, Agent

License Type
Series 11 - Hotel/Motel

Location
1650 N. 95th Lane
Zoning Classification: C-2 and CP/GCP PCD
Council District: 5

This request is for a new liquor license for a hotel. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 9, 2022.

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 41


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We have management in place that has experience in alcohol beverage service and
that has completed Title 4 Basic Mgmt training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“It will enable us to offer our guests alcoholic beverages with meals.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Courtyard Phoenix West Avondale
Liquor License Map - Courtyard Phoenix West Avondale

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




Page 42
Liquor License Data: COURTYARD PHOENIX WEST
AVONDALE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 4 0

Hotel 11 1 1

Restaurant 12 16 6


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 27.30 40.76

Violent Crimes 9.21 4.56 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 57 21

Total Violations 95 29




Page 43
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

0820171 2735 42 % 25 % 19 %

0820172 1746 87 % 18 % 21 %

0820242 2447 19 % 7% 11 %

0830002 3117 42 % 18 % 28 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 44
Liquor License Map: COURTYARD PHOENIX WEST AVONDALE
1650 N 95TH LN




Ü
Date: 11/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 45



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Over Easy

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207B129.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2398 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 150-180
Zoning Classification: C-A H-R CEPCSP
Council District: 6

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales. This location requires a Use Permit
to allow outdoor dining and outdoor alcohol consumption as an accessory to a
restaurant.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 22, 2022.

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.




Page 46

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws and ensure that staff is fully trained.”

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

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




Page 47



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Over Easy

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 1207A528.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4730 E. Indian School Road, Ste. 123
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

This request is for an acquisition of control of an existing liquor license for a restaurant.
This location is currently licensed for liquor sales. This location requires a Use Permit
to allow alcoholic beverage sales, outdoor dining, and outdoor alcohol consumption as
an accessory to a restaurant.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 22, 2022.

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.




Page 48

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“We will continue to abide by title 4 liquor laws and ensure staff is fully trained.”

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

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




Page 49



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Brunch Snob

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170442.

Summary

Applicant
Celene Hillsbery, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4747 E. Elliot Road, Ste. 23 and 24
Zoning Classification: PSC
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 Jan. 22, 2022.

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 50


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been in the restaurant business for 30 + years and have been the GM of
several full service restaurants and bars. I know the responsibility that comes with
serving people alcohol to assure they are not overserved. I understand the importance
of not serving anyone underage and will train my staff to check for ID's for anyone that
looks under 40. Owning a restaurant with a bar is a big responsibility and I understand
the importance of following all city and state guidelines.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The space that we are leasing for our restaurant was a bar and a lot of the old
customers have been by to check to see what type of restaurant we are opening and if
we will be serving alcohol? They miss having a place in the neighborhood where they
can go get a good meal and have a cocktail. Opening a full service restaurant without
a bar seriously constricts the amount of people that will come to eat. We own a
breakfast restaurant now that does not serve alcohol and our sales are not nearly what
they would be if we served alcohol."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Brunch Snob
Liquor License Map - Brunch Snob

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




Page 51
Liquor License Data: BRUNCH SNOB
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2

Restaurant 12 5 4


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 33.17 57.53

Violent Crimes 9.21 3.18 6.15

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 20

Total Violations 95 26




Page 52
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167071 1481 69 % 3% 3%

1167072 1353 90 % 10 % 3%

1167082 1243 52 % 3% 17 %

1167083 1314 34 % 0% 7%

1167084 1551 93 % 10 % 2%

1167092 790 90 % 9% 11 %

1167151 1267 94 % 0% 5%

1167152 888 81 % 17 % 2%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 53
Liquor License Map: BRUNCH SNOB
4747 E ELLIOT RD




Ü
Date: 12/3/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 54



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - CK's Tavern & Grill

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070439.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
4142 E. Chandler Blvd., Ste. 105
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 6

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 9, 2022.

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 55


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 Ck's Tavern & Grill are experienced business operators and have
other successful businesses they currently own. All their employees will attend state
certified liquor law training to ensure compliance.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been a neighborhood favorite for many years. It has had a liquor
license for many years as well. We would like to continue offer the same great food,
drinks, entertainment, and great people our neighbors have come to expect.”

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 - CK's Tavern & Grill
Liquor License Map - CK's Tavern & Grill

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




Page 56
Liquor License Data: CK'S TAVERN & GRILL
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 2

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 3

Restaurant 12 20 11


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 46.15 48.93

Violent Crimes 9.21 5.49 8.91

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 9

Total Violations 95 16




Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167121 2721 19 % 15 % 9%

1167122 1832 76 % 0% 3%

1167131 589 64 % 51 % 42 %

1167133 1145 100 % 0% 7%

1167135 1106 54 % 0% 2%

1167191 1679 87 % 3% 2%

1167194 2185 77 % 0% 4%

1167202 1687 44 % 7% 7%

1167203 1430 34 % 7% 5%

1167212 1820 65 % 4% 3%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 58
Liquor License Map: CK'S TAVERN & GRILL
4142 E CHANDLER BLVD




Ü
Date: 11/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 59



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Hash Kitchen

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 159259.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4315 E. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2, C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR
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 Jan. 8, 2022.

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 60

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.

Sicilian Butcher (Series 12)
15530 N. Tatum Blvd., #160, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 12
Liquor license violations: None

Tomaso's Cuisine of Italy (Series 12)
3225 E. Camelback Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 6
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:
“Hash Kitchen is a casual family-friendly neighborhood restaurant featuring a variety of
quality, fresh brunch menu items. Applicant would like to continue to offer its guests 21
and over the opportunity to enjoy alcoholic beverages as an incident to the menu
items served.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Hash Kitchen
Liquor License Map - Hash Kitchen



Page 61

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




Page 62
Liquor License Data: HASH KITCHEN
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Bar 6 5 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3

Liquor Store 9 5 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 3

Restaurant 12 33 16


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 65.87 89.49

Violent Crimes 9.21 5.99 8.59

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 39

Total Violations 95 65




Page 63
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%

1109022 2224 39 % 7% 18 %

1110001 781 25 % 11 % 3%

1110002 1105 63 % 8% 19 %

1110003 1587 64 % 17 % 24 %

1110004 707 59 % 25 % 0%

1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 64
Liquor License Map: HASH KITCHEN
4315 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Ü
Date: 11/12/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 65



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - OHSO Brewery

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06073005.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
4900 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 3 - Microbrewery and a
Series 12 - Restaurant, liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 18, 2022.

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

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


Page 66

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 will continue to abide by Title 4 liquor laws and ensure staff is trained.”

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 been operating at this location for several years and will continue to be an
asset to our community.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - OHSO Brewery
Liquor License Map - OHSO Brewery

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




Page 67
Liquor License Data: OHSO BREWERY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Bar 6 3 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 0

Liquor Store 9 3 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 0

Restaurant 12 17 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 40.41 48.51

Violent Crimes 9.21 3.37 4.77

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 21

Total Violations 95 35




Page 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1080001 1436 93 % 3% 12 %

1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%

1082002 1178 45 % 8% 8%

1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%

1111003 2317 84 % 11 % 8%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 69
Liquor License Map: OHSO BREWERY
4900 E INDIAN SCHOOL RD




Ü
Date: 11/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 70



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Zookz

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 163242.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3166 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sale of alcoholic beverages, outdoor dining and
alcohol consumption as an accessory use to a restaurant.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 23, 2022.

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


Page 71

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

Zookz (Series 12)
100 E. Camelback Road, Ste.192, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 476
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Owner is capable and qualified with other locations and businesses in the state of
Arizona, with liquor licenses. They have been shown to be responsible providers of
alcohol.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The public convenience and the community will be served by providing alcohol to
customers who desire alcohol in their beverages.”

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 - Zookz
Liquor License Map - Zookz

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


Page 72
Liquor License Data: ZOOKZ
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 4 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 1 1

Hotel 11 3 1

Restaurant 12 27 6


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 60.35 64.54

Violent Crimes 9.21 5.20 4.35

*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 11

Total Violations 95 23


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1078002 1477 63 % 28 % 5%

1083011 1100 89 % 14 % 0%

1083012 1221 72 % 5% 1%

1084004 1641 65 % 7% 19 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 73
Liquor License Map: ZOOKZ
3166 E CAMELBACK RD




Ü
Date: 11/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 74



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - McDowell Mountain Music Festival, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
R. John Largay

Location
67 W. Culver St.
Council District: 7

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March, 4, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. / 5,000 attendees
March, 5, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. / 5,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 75



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Mikie's Market

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 169082.

Summary

Applicant
Minesh Patel, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
1020 S. 19th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 7

This request is for a new liquor license for a beer and wine 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 Jan. 14, 2022.

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 76

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.

Herbal Nails & Spa in Laveen (Series 7)
5185 W. Baseline Road, Ste. 103 and 104, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 9
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 currently own and operate convenience and liquor stores in Arizona. I have many
years of experience in the industry. I have also taken appropriate basic and
management liquor training classes.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This business has been serving the local community for many years. We provide the
essentials the community is looking for within walking distance and help the
community with products at prices they can afford. It is a local favorite with many
repeat customers.”

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 - Mikie's Market
Liquor License Map - Mikie's Market

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


Page 77
Liquor License Data: MIKIE'S MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 8 0

Bar 6 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 3

Restaurant 12 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 90.60 121.86

Violent Crimes 9.21 36.30 37.04
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 100

Total Violations 95 134




Page 78
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1143011 1389 22 % 15 % 57 %

1143021 788 20 % 17 % 66 %

1144011 1953 47 % 11 % 38 %

1144022 1301 41 % 20 % 44 %

1148001 1594 64 % 11 % 36 %

1148002 1258 54 % 36 % 42 %

1173001 387 81 % 16 % 18 %

1173002 701 0% 31 % 69 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 79
Liquor License Map: MIKIE'S MARKET
1020 S 19TH AVE




Ü
Date: 11/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 80



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - T & A Cabaret

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070123.

Summary

Applicant
Christian Nava-Cruz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
3420 S. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3 RSIO
Council District: 7

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a topless bar. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan.15, 2022.

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 81

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.

Chicas Cabaret (Series 7)
2802 N. 35th Ave., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 30
Liquor license violations: In July 2019, a fine of $3,000 was paid for the licensee's
failure to maintain capability, qualification and reliability.

Showtime Cabaret (Series 6)
3614 W. McDowell Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 7
Liquor license violations: None

Public Opinion
Three letters supporting the issuance of this license have been received and are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk. The letters are from local businesses. The business
owners feel that the new ownership will be an improvement to the community.

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 been in the bar business 22 years. I have all my liquor certifications from the State
im also Tipr certificatied I been their for security from A.Z Sheriff agents I know how to
do security bartend & manager.”

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 will have a operator that runs a safe well organized business. We will have
the best security customer service and the public will have a great place to have a
drink in a area were there is not lots of bars we will also be reliable.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.




Page 82

Attachments
Liquor License Data - T & A Cabaret
Liquor License Map - T & A Cabaret

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




Page 83
Liquor License Data: T & A CABARET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Government 5 1 1

Bar 6 1 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 3 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 0

Restaurant 12 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 60.16 44.47

Violent Crimes 9.21 13.72 14.86

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 95

Total Violations 95 148




Page 84
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1148001 1594 64 % 11 % 36 %

1149001 798 28 % 13 % 57 %

1154001 1174 61 % 17 % 54 %

1154002 1147 57 % 0% 37 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 85
Liquor License Map: T & A CABARET
3420 S CENTRAL AVE




Ü
Date: 11/18/2021
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
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1204 E. Roosevelt St.
Council District: 8

Function
Poetry and Art Show

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 18, 2022- 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 200 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 87



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1209 E. Diamond St.
Council District: 8

Function
Art Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 4, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 88



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1209 E. Diamond St.
Council District: 8

Function
Art Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 1, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 89



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1209 E. Diamond St.
Council District: 8

Function
Art Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 4, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 90



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Alwun House Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Dana Johnson

Location
1204 E. Roosevelt St.
Council District: 8

Function
Art Event

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 11, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 400 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 91



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Arizona Science Center

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

Summary

Applicant
Dean Briere

Location
600 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8

Function
Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 5, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 11:59 p.m. / 500 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 92



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Horses Help Foundation

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

Summary

Applicant
Gregg Goodman

Location
113 N. 6th St.
Council District: 8

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 28, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. / 150 attendees
Jan. 29, 2022 - 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. / 2,000 attendees
Jan. 30, 2022 - 11 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. / 1,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 93



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Panaderia Tortilleria Guerrero

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 159766.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2829 N. 32nd St.
Zoning Classification: C-1
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 location
requires a Use Permit to allow the sales of package liquor.

The 60-day limit for processing this application was Nov. 2, 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 94

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:
“My wife and I are familiar with Arizona Liquor laws and we will abide by all city, state
and county laws and regulations. Our primary business is sale of meat and bakery
items however, we would like to offer beer and wine to go to our customers. Many
customers walk to our location so it will be similar to a one-stop shop for their
convenience.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our business has been in existence for many years and we already provide need and
convenience to the community. Our meat and bakery items are the primary focus of or
our customers and we want to continue to be good partners with the neighborhood
residents, the city and the state.”

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 - Panaderia Tortilleria Guerrero
Liquor License Map - Panaderia Tortilleria Guerrero

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




Page 95
Liquor License Data: PANADERIA TORTILLERIA
GUERRERO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 6 3

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2

Liquor Store 9 6 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 5

Restaurant 12 11 4


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.11 188.72 239.38

Violent Crimes 9.06 32.85 50.53

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 106

Total Violations 94 185




Page 96
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1108021 948 75 % 27 % 13 %

1108022 1168 33 % 16 % 7%

1109012 2669 23 % 19 % 27 %

1109021 2609 33 % 21 % 40 %

1114011 2444 62 % 7% 27 %

1114012 2000 67 % 23 % 29 %

1114021 1986 38 % 14 % 27 %

1115022 2109 42 % 7% 17 %

1115024 1708 40 % 25 % 53 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 97
Liquor License Map: PANADERIA TORTILLERIA GUERRERO
2829 N 32ND ST




Ü
Date: 10/19/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 98



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Rodehouse Restaurant & Lounge

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 166819.

Summary

Applicant
Amanda Moeller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2425 S. 24th St.
Zoning Classification: A-2
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 14, 2022.

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 99


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I'm the daughter of a retired police office who instilled in me an understanding of law,
right and civic responsibilities. I worked as an engineer & an operational manager for
Johnson & Johnson and Nestle. There I managed people & had responsibilities. These
responsibilities included managing operations of pharmaceutical products &
conducting audits. I have read & understand all of the information available in your
literature about being a responsible citiz & business owner, about managing this
license & about not promoting drinking and driving.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Our company values include a belief that people can enjoy themselves responsibly.
We understand that alcohol can be used as entertainment but when used in excess, it
can be a dangerous substance to the Public. We will serve alcohol responsibly. We will
not serve alco to anyone who has had enough already. We will serve alcohol based on

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Rodehouse Restaurant & Lounge
Liquor License Map - Rodehouse Restaurant & Lounge

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




Page 100
Liquor License Data: RODEHOUSE RESTAURANT &
LOUNGE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 2 0

Conveyance 8 1 0

Restaurant 12 2 2


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 12.84 15.39

Violent Crimes 9.21 1.67 1.91

*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 57 4

Total Violations 95 7


Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1138021 0 0% 0% 0%

1172001 823 25 % 17 % 70 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 101
Liquor License Map: RODEHOUSE RESTAURANT & LOUNGE
2425 S 24TH ST




Ü
Date: 11/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 102



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Speedy Stop

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070499.

Summary

Applicant
Nirav Patel, Agent

License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store

Location
5033 S. 16th St.
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 8

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 Jan. 7, 2022.

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 103

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.

Shell Cave Creek (Series 10)
31414 N. Cave Creek Road, Phoenix
Calls for police service: 6
Liquor license violations: None

Pebblestone Market (Series 9)
3399 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

Herbal Nail & Spa (Series 7)
6590 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am currently an operator of 3 store with liquor license and operating for past 17
years and I have not had any issues or any type of denial in the past. I operate all my
stores to the best of my capibilites with trained staff.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“The location is conveniently located right off 16th Street and Roeser Rd. The location
will continue to provide a convenient stop to purchase liquor for the people in the
neighbhour hood with easy access.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.


Page 104


Attachments
Liquor License Data - Speedy Stop
Liquor License Map - Speedy Stop

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




Page 105
Liquor License Data: SPEEDY STOP
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 4 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 1

Restaurant 12 1 0

Club 14 1 1


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 95.62 83.43

Violent Crimes 9.21 21.57 21.76

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 91

Total Violations 95 146




Page 106
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1153001 1600 47 % 16 % 46 %

1153002 804 36 % 0% 33 %

1159001 1461 63 % 20 % 45 %

1159002 2720 55 % 22 % 30 %

1160002 2674 85 % 19 % 9%

1160003 1802 54 % 17 % 38 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 107
Liquor License Map: SPEEDY STOP
5033 S 16TH ST




Ü
Date: 11/10/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 108



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Tacos y Mariscos Topolobampo

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170610.

Summary

Applicant
Jared Repinski, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
3108 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 23, 2022.

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

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


Page 109


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been representing liquor licensed establishments in Arizona for over 15 years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bars, microbreweries, distilleries, hotel, resorts, golf
course, special events, convenience / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval due to tax delinquencies.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Tacos y Mariscos Topolobampo
Liquor License Map - Tacos y Mariscos Topolobampo

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




Page 110
Liquor License Data: TACOS Y MARISCOS
TOPOLOBAMPO
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 3 0

Bar 6 3 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0

Liquor Store 9 1 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1

Restaurant 12 7 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 107.80 72.18

Violent Crimes 9.21 26.96 16.13

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 60

Total Violations 95 129




Page 111
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1121001 989 53 % 5% 35 %

1121002 1598 60 % 3% 32 %

1121003 1225 54 % 0% 46 %

1122012 2059 55 % 21 % 17 %

1126012 1987 42 % 16 % 47 %

1127001 1882 54 % 0% 25 %

1127004 673 79 % 31 % 33 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 112
Liquor License Map: TACOS Y MARISCOS TOPOLOBAMPO
3108 W MCDOWELL RD




Ü
Date: 11/30/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 113




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48217) (Items 33-37)
Ordinance S-48217 is a request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds, up to amounts indicated below, for the purpose of
paying vendors, contractors, claimants and others, and providing
additional payment authority under certain existing city contracts. This
section also requests continuing payment authority, up to amounts
indicated below, for the following contracts, contract extensions and/or
bids awarded. As indicated below, some items below require payment
pursuant to Phoenix City Code section 42-13.

33 Settlement of Claim(s) APS v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $36,284.88 in settlement of claim(s) in APS v. City
of Phoenix, 20-1179-001, PD, GL, for the Finance Department pursuant
to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of property
damage claim arising out of a Public Works incident on Feb. 17, 2021.

34 Evergreen Turf
For $50,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about Jan. 15, 2022, for a term of five years for turf grass sod for the
Parks and Recreation Department. Various City parks and facilities need
turf grass sod. Turf grass sod will help the department ensure parks and
sports fields throughout the City are maintained to a good standard. The
contract will provide materials, labor and equipment required to supply
and install sod.

35 Atlantic Diving Supply, Inc. doing business as ADS Inc.
For $47,000.00 in payment authority to purchase a Flat Panel X-ray Nano
with battery charger accessory kit for the Police Department. The
equipment will be used by bomb technicians to obtain rapid images of
suspected hazardous devices and improvised explosive devices. The
system is small, light, and portable allowing the technician to rapidly



Page 114

respond to incidents in progress in a safe manner. The Phoenix Police
Department’s Bomb Squad is the largest bomb squad in the State of
Arizona and is responsible for providing trained personnel the equipment
necessary to handle and dispose of improvised explosive devices, old
explosive chemicals, investigate bombs, bomb threats and conduct post
bomb scene investigations. The incidents require the use of specialized
equipment to mitigate hazards to the community, as well as first
responders. The item is grant funded and must be ordered, delivered,
and paid for by the grant deadline of Sept. 30, 2022.

36 Steven M Guttell doing business as Steven M Guttell,
PLC
For $75,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about Jan. 15, 2022 for a term of five years for Civil Service Board
Hearing Officers for the Human Resources Department. The officers are
needed to perform duties such as conducting hearings on Civil Service
Board appeals as provided in the Personnel Rules, composing written
reports stating findings and conclusions of the law, and making
recommendations for the Civil Service Board's review and approval.

The Human Resources Department issued a Request for Qualifications -
RFQu HR 21-006 for Civil Service Board Hearing Officers, an evaluation
panel scored the proposal and recommended a contract be awarded to
Steven M. Guttell.

37 Sundt Construction, Inc.
For $1,503,257.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 151260,
Change Order 1 for Project WS85230052 for the Val Vista Water
Treatment Plant Rehabilitation 2018 project for the Water Services
Department. The change order is for new scope which includes electrical
building re-sequencing, Used Water Recovery System backwash clarifier
coating rehabilitation, and final sediment basins grout repair. The work
was not included as part of the original bid. All unused funds will be
placed in owner's contingency. The project uses funds from the Water
Services Department's Capital Improvement budget; no General Funds
are required.




Page 115



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Selection of Vice Mayor

Request to permit the City Council to select one of its members to serve as Vice
Mayor, until such time of another Vice Mayor selection, pursuant to Phoenix City
Charter IV, section 3. Rule 7(c) of the Rules of Council Proceedings states that "The
Council shall select a new Vice Mayor once each calendar year at the first Formal
meeting in January or at the next regularly scheduled meeting after a Vice Mayor
vacancy occurs."

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by the City Manager's Office.




Page 116



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Proposed 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation - Public Hearing

A public hearing, as required by Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-471, on the
proposed 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation. This public hearing allows
the City Council to gather community input regarding this annexation proposal. The
adoption of this proposed annexation will be considered at a later date.

Summary
The annexation was requested by Nick Wood, Esq. with Snell & Wilmer LLP for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-471
regarding annexation. Additionally, the annexation is recommended for adoption per
the attached Task Force Analysis Report (Attachment A).

Public Outreach
Notification of the public hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette
newspaper, and was posted in at least three conspicuous places in the area proposed
to be annexed. Also, notice via first-class mail was sent to each property owner within
the proposed annexation area.

Location
The proposed annexation are includes parcels 210-10-008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-
008F and 210-10-008G, located at 19th Ave. and Happy Valley Road. (Attachment B
). The annexation area is approximately 5.24 acres (0.0080 sq. mi.) and the population
estimate is 11 individuals.
Council District: 1

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




Page 117
ATTACHMENT A



CITY COUNCIL REPORT


TO: Ginger Spencer
Deputy City Manager


FROM: Alan Stephenson
Planning Director


SUBJECT: Request for Task Force Analysis: 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road


This report recommends the approval of the proposed annexation of 5.24 acres located at 19th
Avenue and Happy Valley Road, Parcels: APN # 210-10-008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-008F
and 210-10-008G.



THE REQUEST:

The applicant is requesting annexation to rezone the and develop a multi-family residential
community of 463 units with access to city of Phoenix services. Each of the four parcels contain
a single-family residence.


OTHER INFORMATION:


Planning Village: Deer Valley
General Plan Designation: Traditional Lot, Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Current Zoning District: RU-43
Equivalent Zoning District: S-1
Current Conditions
Current Land Use: Single-Family Residences
To the North: Undeveloped, zoned RU-43, Maricopa County jurisdiction
To the South: Commercial development and Undeveloped, zoned C-2
SP and C-2, City of Phoenix jurisdiction

To the West: Undeveloped, zoned RU-43, Maricopa County jurisdiction
and C-O/M-O, City of Phoenix jurisdiction.




Page 118
To the East: Undeveloped, zoned S-1, City of Phoenix jurisdiction


Non-Conformities Present? NONE PRESENT


PARCEL HISTORY:
210-10-008F Approved home-based business for firearm sales per LU20050036


ALTERNATIVES:

• Option A - Annex the land as requested:
The city of Phoenix will control rezoning requests in this area to ensure conformance with the
General Plan Land Use Map. The city of Phoenix will capture property tax, utility tax, state
shared revenue, and impact fees.


• Option B - Deny the request for annexation:
If annexed later, this site would have been developed under County zoning and development
standards that may not be consistent with the General Plan, Land Use Map, zoning, and
development standards.


RECOMMENDATION:
Located adjacent to City of Phoenix lands, this annexation is supported by the 2015 General
Plan, particularly the Land Use goal for land uses and development standards for
unincorporated land, under Policies 1 and 2. This annexation is recommended for approval.
Approval of annexation does not constitute recommendation for future rezoning actions.


SUPPORTING INFORMATION:
I. Water and Sewer Service
The 4 parcels included in the request do not front existing water or sewer infrastructure.
City map shows closest water mains within the following area:
-Approximately 335-feet to the east of the southeast corner of proposed parcel, APN
210-10-008D is an 8-inch DIP water main within the west half of N 17th Avenue
-Approximately 530-feet plus to the west of the northwest and southwest corners of
proposed parcels, APN 210-10-008F and APN 210-10-008B is a 54-inch PCCP water
main within N 19th Avenue (Do Not Use, Transmission Main) and a 12-inch DIP water
main within N 19th Avenue




Page 119
City map shows closest sewer mains within the general area:
-A 12-inch VCP sewer main within W Happy Valley Road to the south of proposed
parcels
-A 8-inch VCP sewer main internal to subdivision west of N 19th Avenue
Significant infrastructure improvements will be required in order to serve the proposed
parcel with City of Phoenix services. Design and construction of any infrastructure will
be the responsibility of the developer. Specifics regarding potential main extension
requirements would be discussed and determined at a pre-application meeting after
annexation. It is the City’s intent to provide water and sewer service. However, the
requirements and assurances for water and sewer service are determined during the site
plan application review, the PCD master plan or the building permit approval. Water
and/or sewer system requirements and stipulations are determined at time of Site Plan
approval. Capacity on any existing infrastructure is also determined at that time. Please
be advised that capacity is a dynamic condition that can change over time due to a
variety of factors.


II. Fire Protection
Servicing Station: Phoenix Fire Station 55
Station Capacity Level, Current: Unknown
Station Capacity Level, After Annexation: Unknown
Current Response Time: 3 Min. 15 Sec.
City Average Response Time: 5 Min. 2 Sec.
Difference From Typical Response Time: 1 Min. 47 Sec.
Number Of Service Calls Expected: 7

Average Cost Per Service Call: $466
Estimated Total Annual Fire Service Costs: $3,233


III. Police Protection
Servicing Station: Black Mountain Precinct, 33355
North Cave Creek Rd, Cave Creek,
AZ 85331
Number Of New Officers Required: 0.07
Number Of New Patrol Cars Required: 0.03
Estimated Total Annual Police Service Costs: $9,464




Page 120
IV. Refuse Collection
Number of New Containers Required: 26
Note: Public refuse container costs not applicable for apartments and non-residential l
uses as these require private refuse services or contractual agreements with the City
that are not determined at this time.
Cost for Refuse Containers, Each: $43.05
Cost for Recycling Containers, Each: $45.70
Total Start-Up Costs For Refuse Collection: $2,325


V. Street Maintenance
Average Cost Per Acre For Street Maintenance: $85
Estimated Total Annual Street Maintenance Costs: $447


VI. Public Transit
Servicing Routes: There are no servicing routes to the proposed annexation area


VII. Parks and Recreation
Neighborhood Park Demand In Acres: 0.27
Community Park Demand In Acres: 0.14
District Park Demand In Acres: 0.14
Total Park Demand In Acres: 0.56
Cost Per Acre, Annual Maintenance: $11,000
Total Annual Parks and Recreation Costs: $6,142


VIII. Schools
Elementary School District: Deer Valley Unified
High School District: Deer Valley Unified
Total Expected Elementary School Students: 18
Total Expected High School Students: 10
Total Expected New Students: 29




Page 121
IX. Revenues
This project is not in an Impact Fee area.


Tax Income, Year One
Property Tax Income: $3,008
Utility Fee Income: $3,275
State Shared Revenue: $22,223
Solid Waste: $10,627
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually: $39,133


Tax Income, Year Two and Beyond
Property Tax Income: $3,008
Utility Fee Income: $3,275
State Shared Revenue: $22,223
Solid Waste: $10,627
Sales Tax Generated: $0
Total Tax Related Income, Annually: $39,133


X. Total Costs
Revenue, First Year Only: $39,133
Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $39,133


Expenses, First Year Only: $21,612
Expenses, Year Two and Beyond: $19,287


XI. Total Annual Revenue
Total Annual Revenue, First Year Only: $17,521
Total Annual Revenue, Year Two and Beyond: $19,846




Page 122
The above referenced Property Tax Income figures are based on vacant parcels only, it does
not not refer to future development which will vary depending on number of lots and individual
square footage.
Total Tax Related Income and Total Annual Revenues will vary depending on project scope
and size, the timing of permit issuance and build-out.




Page 123
ATTACHMENT B




Page 124



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Easements and a Deed for Public Utility, Sidewalk
and Roadway Purposes (Ordinance S-48227)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements and a deed for public
utility, 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: Jean-Michel Gillet and Denise Gillet, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1402 E. Shangri La Rd.
File: FN 210104
Council District: 3

Easement (b)
Applicant: 1449 E Hoover LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 1449 E. Hoover Ave.
File: FN 210109
Council District: 4

Easement (c)
Applicant: 380 E. Windsor Avenue LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 380 E. Windsor Ave.
File: FN 210110
Council District: 4

Easement (d)
Applicant: Hermina Hernandez Torrez, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk


Page 125

Location: 2523 E. Monroe St.
File: FN 210112
Council District: 8

Deed (e)
Applicant: VWP 48th ST OWNER, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 3232 S. 48th St.
File: FN 210100
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 126



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance of Easements for Drainage and for Refuse Collection, Emergency
and Service Vehicle Access Purposes (Ordinance S-48232)

Request for the City Council to accept easements for drainage and for refuse
collection, emergency and service vehicle access purposes; further ordering the
ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: Villa Fifty1 West LP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Refuse Collection, Emergency and Service Vehicle Access
Location: 1850 N. 51st St.
File: FN 210102
Council District: 6

Easement (b)
Applicant: Chamberlain Development, L.L.C., its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 5153 W. Fillmore St.
File: FN 210108
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer, the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.




Page 127



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Dedication of Easements on City-Owned Land for Public Utility and Roadway
Purposes along 7th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (Ordinance S-48228)

Request for the City Council to dedicate easements to public use for utility and
roadway purposes on City-owned land along 7th Ave. and Happy Valley Rd.; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
Dedication of public utility and roadway easements is required to accommodate public
improvements. The 9,044 square foot public utility and 31,861 square foot roadway
easement is located within City-owned land along the east side 7th Ave. and the south
side of Happy Valley Rd. The easements are more fully described in the legal
descriptions to be recorded with the ordinance.

Location
Southeast corner of 7th Ave. and Happy Valley Rd.
Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.




Page 128



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acquisition of Real Property for Street Improvements along North 35th Avenue
between West Camelback and West Bethany Home Roads (Ordinance S-48235)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to acquire all real property
and related property interests required by donation, purchase within the City's
appraised value, or by the power of eminent domain for street improvements along
North 35th Avenue between west Camelback and west Bethany Home roads. 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 acquisition of real property is needed for the 35th Avenue: Camelback Road to
Bethany Home Road Improvement project, which includes new street lighting,
installation of new traffic signals, and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant
curb ramps at the Camelback Road and Bethany Home Road intersections. This
project addresses roadway safety and changing conditions as a result of extensive
modifications to adjacent land use.

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 utilizing Transportation 2050 Funds.

Location
Along North 35th Avenue between west Camelback and west Bethany Home roads.
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua, the Street
Transportation and Finance departments.




Page 129
Attachment A
Property Identification

35th Avenue- Camelback Road to Bethany Home 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
145-10-114E 3501 W BETHANY HOME RD
145-10-117 5702 N 35TH AVE
145-10-118 5702 N 35TH AVE
145-11-001 5618 N 35TH AVE
145-11-004 5632 N 35TH AVE
145-11-007 5646 N 35TH AVE
145-11-173 5510 N 35TH AVE
145-11-176 5526 N 35TH AVE
145-11-179 5610 N 35TH AVE
145-15-084 5102 N 35TH AVE
145-15-087 5120 N 35TH AVE
145-15-089 5134 N 35TH AVE
145-15-107 3502 W CAMELBACK RD
145-15-111 5020 N 35TH AVE
145-16-001A 3501 W MISSOURI AVE
145-16-002A 5302 N 35TH AVE
145-16-009A 3502 W COLTER ST
145-16-012 5226 N 35TH AVE
145-16-013 3501 W GEORGIA AVE
152-08-087C 6002 N 35TH AVE
153-01-150A 5849 N 35TH AVE
153-17-005D 3446 W CAMELBACK RD
154-08-028 3433 W CAMELBACK RD




1 of 1
Page 130



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Flexible Spending Account and COBRA Administration Services (Ordinance S-
48239)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to authorize additional
payment authority of $220,000 (S-46757) with ConnectYourCare, LLC to provide
Flexible Spending Account (FSA) administration services and the Consolidated
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA) administration services. The total
revised aggregate amount of $440,000 will not exceed $160,000 for FSA services and
$280,000 for COBRA services over five years. Further request authorization for the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
This request is needed as a result of negotiations with the vendor who misunderstood
the billing terms in the Request for Proposal (RFP). City staff determined it best to
negotiate rates with this vendor as the benefits provided are annually-calculated
federally regulated benefits. Negotiations resulted in rates comparable to other offers
in the RFP process.

A FSA is a tax-favored program offered by employers which allows its employees to
pay for eligible out-of-pocket health care and dependent care expenses with pre-tax
dollars. Currently, there are approximately 1,100 employee healthcare FSA accounts
and 300 employee dependent care FSA accounts.

COBRA requires employers with group health plans to provide temporary continuation
of group health coverage (medical, dental and vision), when such coverage would
otherwise be lost, to covered employees and their dependents. The City typically has
600 to 700 COBRA qualified participants.

Contract Term
The five-year contract began on Jan. 1, 2021 and will expire on Dec. 31, 2025.

Financial Impact
The revised aggregate five-year value shall not exceed $440,000. The contract value
is based on current and projected enrollment. Funds are available in the Human
Resources Department's budget.


Page 131


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
RFP HR 20-107 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10 and
approved by Council on June 17, 2020.

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




Page 132



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
PeopleSoft Application Development Contract Extension (Ordinance S-48252)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract No. 151639 with Envision, LLC for one year through February 4, 2023 and to
authorize additional payment authority in the amount of $400,000. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City entered into contract with Envision, LLC for a two-year term on February 5,
2020 to provide PeopleSoft Application Development Services for the Human
Resources Department. PeopleSoft software is used Citywide to manage human
resources functions such as payroll, recruiting, hiring and benefits management. This
one-year extension is needed to finalize upgrades to the Talent Acquisition Manager
and Candidate Gateways modules which modernize City recruiting, application and
hiring processes. Additional needs include fully utilizing PeopleSoft functionality to
produce under/non-utilized data for analysis, measurement, decision making and
branding for recruiting; adding new Human Resources and benefits functionality;
upgrading the open enrollment experience; and replacing annual paper-based policy
acknowledgements.

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 special circumstance without competition.
The Information Technology Services Department is conducting a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ); however, the current contract will expire before a vendor could
be selected using the new RFQ list.

Financial Impact
Upon the approval of the additional payment authority of $400,000, the revised
aggregate value will be $1,130,000. Funds are available in the Information Technology
Services Department’s budget.



Page 133

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The initial contract was approved by City Council on Feb. 5, 2020.

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




Page 134



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Chapter 2, Article III in Accordance with Human Resources
Committee 612A Recommendations (Ordinance G-6941)

Request to authorize City Manager to amend Chapter 2, Article III to establish the
salaries for Judges of the City Court; establish the salary and benefits of the Assistant
Presiding Judge; and to modify the benefits for Court Hearing Officers.

Summary
Background
The City of Phoenix Municipal Court supports nearly 40 judges yet has no official
structural alignment to provide management and administrative oversight to those
judges. There is one position that has a working title of “assistant presiding judge” but
this position is classified and compensated the same as all other judges. Because this
role provides managerial and supervisory functions, it makes sense to establish a
separate organizational level for this role and compensate the position appropriately. A
new grade would also be established concurrent with the establishment of the
classification.

During the review of the judicial structure, staff also reviewed the salary and
compensation packages for other courts in the local labor market. Without exception,
all of the neighboring municipalities allow for a salary review process that provides the
flexibility to adjust salaries on a periodic basis to remain competitive in the
marketplace.

Phoenix, however, has salary rates for judges specified in City Code at the same rate
provided to the judges of the Superior Court of Arizona. As a result, Phoenix judges
are compensated at the lowest rate in the local market, and there is no opportunity or
flexibility provided by the City Code to resolve this situation. A request for comparable
salary information from neighboring municipalities in the local labor market was
conducted between August through October 2021.

Municipality Base Salary
Scottsdale $202,384
Surprise $186,803
Mesa $173,430


Page 135

Tempe $173,348
Chandler $176,008
Glendale $169,635
Gilbert $168,637
Maricopa County Superior Court $149,400

A simple average of the neighboring cities (including Maricopa County Superior Court)
yields $174,956. Staff recommend adjusting the annual salary up slightly to $175,011.
This would move Phoenix to be competitively positioned in the labor market.

Furthermore, recognizing the supervisory responsibilities of the Assistant Chief
Presiding Judge, staff are recommending a base salary calculated at 10 percent above
that of the judges. This results in a salary of $192,504.

City Code currently provides for the Court Hearing Officers and Presiding Court
Hearing Officers to receive the same benefits as provided for in the supervisory and
professional pay plan of the City of Phoenix. However, because the roles and
responsibilities are closely tied to the judges, and their base salary is calculated as a
percentage of the judges, it is recommended the benefit package of the Hearing
Officers be revised be to the same as that of the judges, namely the same benefits as
provided for in the middle management pay plan of the City of Phoenix.

These amendments are effective on Jan. 24, 2022.

The amendments are reflected in Attachment A.

The specific salary and benefit changes for the Assistant Presiding Judge, Judges of
the City Court, and Court Hearing Officers will be made on separate ordinances
modifying the City’s compensation plan and classification plan.

Financial Impact
The total estimated cost for the entire proposal is $825,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 612A on Dec. 9, 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters, Assistant City Manager
Lori Bays, and the Human Resources Department.



Page 136
ATTACHMENT A

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

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE III TO
ESTABLISH THE SALARIES FOR JUDGES OF THE CITY
COURT; ESTABLISH THE SALARY AND BENEFITS OF
THE ASSISTANT PRESIDING JUDGE; AND TO MODIFY
THE BENEFITS FOR COURT HEARING OFFICERS.



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

follows:




AF
SECTION 1. That Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-83.1 is

amended to read:




T
2-83.1 Salaries

A. A Judge of the City Court is entitled to receive an annual salary in an
amount AS PROVIDED FOR BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX equal to one hundred percent of the annual salary paid to a
Judge of the Superior Court of Arizona, and in addition thereto, each
Judge of the City Court shall be entitled to receive the same benefits,
INCLUDING INCREASES TO BASE WAGES, as provided for in the
middle management pay plan of the City. The salaries of Judges of the


R City Court shall change concurrently with any change in the salaries of
Judges of the Superior Court.

B. A JUDGE OF THE CITY COURT DESIGNATED AS THE ASSISTANT
PRESIDING JUDGE BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE PURSUANT TO



D SECTION 2-83(8) IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY IN
AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE HUNDRED TEN PERCENT OF THE
SALARY PAID TO A JUDGE OF THE PHOENIX CITY COURT AND IN
ADDITION THERETO, THE ASSISTANT PRESIDING JUDGE SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO RECEIVE THE SAME BENEFITS, INCLUDING
INCREASES TO BASE WAGES, AS PROVIDED FOR IN THE
EXECUTIVE PAY PLAN OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX.

BC. The salary of the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Court of the City of
Phoenix shall be in an amount as provided for by the Council of the City of
Phoenix and, in addition thereto, the Presiding Judge shall be entitled to the
same fringe benefits as provided for in the executive pay plan of the City of
Phoenix.




Page 137
SECTION 2. That Chapter 2, Article III, Division 1, Section 2-94 is

amended to read:


2-94 Court Hearing Officers and presiding Court Hearing Officer—
Qualifications; term; removal; hearing officers pro tempore; compensation;
powers and duties.

A. Court Hearing Officers appointed by the Chief Presiding Judge
pursuant to chapter VIII, section 9, of the Phoenix City Charter, must meet
the following minimum qualifications at the time of appointment.




AF
1. All qualifications as may be established, from time to time, by the
Arizona Supreme Court or as may be required by statute for such
officers.

2. In addition to the foregoing, such officers must have either a law
degree or a bachelor’s degree with at least three years of




T
experience in the area of traffic law or a related field.

B. Court hearing officers shall be appointed for a term of two years and
may only be removed during said term by the Chief Presiding Judge for
cause and after a hearing. The Chief Presiding Judge may, in addition,
appoint such Court Hearing Officers pro tempore as may be required by
the City Court, to serve at the Chief Presiding Judge’s pleasure.




R C. A Court Hearing Officer is entitled to receive an annual salary in an
amount that equals seventy percent of the annual salary paid to a Judge
of the Phoenix City Court and in addition thereto, a Court Hearing Officer
shall be entitled to receive the same benefits as provided for in the
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT supervisory and professional pay plan of the


D concurrently with any change in the salary of a Judge of the City Court.
Said compensation may not be reduced during the term of office of an
incumbent other than the proportion by which salaries of all City
employees may be reduced generally.

D. The powers and duties of a court hearing officer shall be those as may
be established, from time to time, by the City Charter, ordinance, statute,
or the rules of the Arizona Supreme Court, relating to such officers. The
City Manager is authorized to exempt Court Hearing Officers from the
classified service pursuant to Chapter XXV, Section 5.1.q of the Charter of
the City of Phoenix.




Page 138
E. The Chief Presiding Judge shall designate a court hearing officer as
presiding Court Hearing Officer to serve at the Chief Presiding Judge’s
pleasure and to perform such duties as the Chief Presiding Judge may
delegate. The Presiding Court Hearing Officer shall receive an annual
salary in an amount equal to eighty-five percent of the annual salary of a
City Court judge and, in addition thereto, the Presiding Court Hearing
Officer shall be entitled to receive the same benefits as provided for in the
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT supervisory and professional pay plan of the
City. The salary of the Presiding Court Hearing Officer shall change
concurrently with any change in the salary of a Judge of the City Court.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this ____ day of January

2022.




ATTEST: AF _____________________________________
MAYOR




T
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney

BY:


R
REVIEWED BY:


D
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




Page 139



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Classification Plan S-5815 in Accordance with Human
Resources Committee 612A Recommendations (Ordinance S-48258)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Classification Plan [S-5815] are proposed in accordance with the recommendation of
Human Resources Committee 612A. The proposal will also require modifications to
the City’s Pay Ordinance [S-47689] which will be processed under a separate
ordinance.

Establish the classification of Assistant Chief Presiding Judge (NC), Job Code: 10580,
Salary Plan: 018, Grade: 970 ($92.55 hourly), Benefit Category: 010, Labor Unit Code:
008, EEO-4 Category: Officials and Administrator, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Modify the classification of City Judge (NC), Job Code: 10570, Salary Plan: 013,
Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: 008, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade: 880 ($71.818 hourly) to Grade: 880
($84.14 hourly).

Modify the classification of Presiding Court Hearing Officer (NC), Job Code: 10060,
Salary Plan: 001, Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit Code: 008, EEO-4 Category:
Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Salary Plan: 001 to Salary Plan: 013,
Grade: 870 ($71.52 hourly), Benefit Category: 009, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator.

Modify the classification of Municipal Court Hearing Officer (NC), Job Code: 10050,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade: 081 ($50.273 hourly), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 008, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt, to Salary Plan: 013,
Grade: 860 ($58.90 hourly), Benefit Category: 009, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator.

Summary
Background
The City of Phoenix Municipal Court supports nearly 40 judges yet has no official
structural alignment to provide management and administrative oversight to those
judges. There is one position that has a working title of “Assistant Presiding Judge,”


Page 140

but this position is classified and compensated the same as all other judges. Because
this role provides managerial and supervisory functions, it makes sense to establish a
separate organizational level for this role and compensate the position appropriately. A
new grade would also be established concurrent with the establishment of the
classification. These actions are contingent upon changes to the City Code that would
authorize such.

During the review of the judicial structure, staff also reviewed the salary and
compensation packages for other courts in the local labor market. Without exception,
all of the neighboring municipalities allow for a salary review process that provides the
flexibility to adjust salaries on a periodic basis to remain competitive in the
marketplace.

Phoenix, however, has salary rates for judges specified in City Code at the same rate
provided to the judges of the Superior Court of Arizona. As a result, Phoenix judges
are compensated at the lowest rate in the local market, and there is no opportunity or
flexibility provided by the City Code to resolve this situation. A request for comparable
salary information from neighboring municipalities in the local labor market was
conducted between August through October 2021.

Municipality Base Salary
Scottsdale $202,384
Surprise $186,803
Mesa $173,430
Tempe $173,348
Chandler $176,008
Glendale $169,635
Gilbert $168,637
Maricopa County Superior Court $149,400
Tucson $119,467
Flagstaff $110,023

It is recommended to exclude Tucson and Flagstaff from further analysis; their salaries
are considerably lower than the others, and geographically they are not within the
immediate labor market of Phoenix.

A simple average of the neighboring cities (including Maricopa County Superior Court)
yields $174,956. Staff recommend adjusting the annual salary up slightly to $175,011.
This would move Phoenix to be competitively positioned in the labor market. This
action is contingent upon changes to the City Code that would authorize such.



Page 141

Furthermore, recognizing the supervisory responsibilities of the Assistant Chief
Presiding Judge, staff are recommending a base salary calculated at 10 percent above
that of the judges. This results in a salary of $192,504. This action is contingent upon
changes to the City Code that would authorize such.

City Code currently provides for the Court Hearing Officers and Presiding Court
Hearing Officers to receive the same benefits as provided for in the supervisory and
professional pay plan of the City of Phoenix. However, because the roles and
responsibilities are closely tied to the judges, and their base salary is calculated as a
percentage of the judges, it is recommended the benefit package of the Hearing
Officers be revised be to the same as that of the judges, namely the same benefits as
provided for in the middle management pay plan of the City of Phoenix. These actions
are contingent upon changes to the City Code that would authorize such.

The proposed changes to Section 5, paragraph (r) are intended to allow these
classifications to receive salary increases consistent with those afforded to other Unit 9
and 10 employees.

These amendments are effective on Jan. 24, 2022.

Financial Impact
The total estimated cost for the entire proposal is $825,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 612A on Dec. 9, 2021.

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




Page 142



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 in Accordance with Human Resources
Committee 612A Recommendations (Ordinance S-48259)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Pay Ordinance [S 47689] are proposed in accordance with the recommendation of
Human Resources Committee 612A. The proposal will also require modifications to
the City’s Classification Plan [S-5815], which will be processed under a separate
ordinance.

Modify Section 5, paragraph (r): Compensation. Effective July 11, 2022, a 1.64% base
wage increase will be applied to Unit 9 and 10 pay grades and employees. In addition,
all Unit 9 and 10 employees will receive a non-continuous payment of 4.10% annual
base wage to be paid out on the first full pay period in August 2022, after completing
requirements set forth by the City Manager relative to their performance evaluations.
The provisions of this paragraph do not apply to the Chief Presiding Judge (NC).

Establish the classification of Assistant Chief Presiding Judge (NC), Job Code: 10580,
Salary Plan: 018, Grade: 970 ($92.55 hourly), Benefit Category: 010, Labor Unit Code:
008, EEO-4 Category: Officials and Administrator, FLSA Status: Exempt.

Modify the classification of City Judge (NC), Job Code: 10570, Salary Plan: 013,
Benefit Category: 009, Labor Unit Code: 008, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Grade: 880 ($71.818 hourly) to Grade: 880
($84.14 hourly).

Modify the classification of Presiding Court Hearing Officer (NC), Job Code: 10060,
Salary Plan: 001, Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit Code: 008, EEO-4 Category:
Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt, from Salary Plan: 001 to Salary Plan: 013,
Grade: 870 ($71.52 hourly), Benefit Category: 009, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator.

Modify the classification of Municipal Court Hearing Officer (NC), Job Code: 10050,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade: 081 ($50.273 hourly), Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit
Code: 008, EEO-4 Category: Professionals, FLSA Status: Exempt, to Salary Plan: 013,
Grade: 860 ($58.90 hourly), Benefit Category: 009, EEO-4 Category: Officials and
Administrator.

Page 143




Summary
Background
The City of Phoenix Municipal Court supports nearly 40 judges yet has no official
structural alignment to provide management and administrative oversight to those
judges. There is one position that has a working title of “Assistant Presiding Judge,”
but this position is classified and compensated the same as all other judges. Because
this role provides managerial and supervisory functions, it makes sense to establish a
separate organizational level for this role and compensate the position appropriately. A
new grade would also be established concurrent with the establishment of the
classification. These actions are contingent upon changes to the City Code that would
authorize such.

During the review of the judicial structure, staff also reviewed the salary and
compensation packages for other courts in the local labor market. Without exception,
all of the neighboring municipalities allow for a salary review process that provides the
flexibility to adjust salaries on a periodic basis to remain competitive in the
marketplace.

Phoenix, however, has salary rates for judges specified in City Code at the same rate
provided to the judges of the Superior Court of Arizona. As a result, Phoenix judges
are compensated at the lowest rate in the local market, and there is no opportunity or
flexibility provided by the City Code to resolve this situation. A request for comparable
salary information from neighboring municipalities in the local labor market was
conducted between August through October 2021.

Municipality Base Salary
Scottsdale $202,384
Surprise $186,803
Mesa $173,430
Tempe $173,348
Chandler $176,008
Glendale $169,635
Gilbert $168,637
Maricopa County Superior Court $149,400
Tucson $119,467
Flagstaff $110,023

It is recommended to exclude Tucson and Flagstaff from further analysis; their salaries
are considerably lower than the others, and geographically they are not within the


Page 144

immediate labor market of Phoenix.

A simple average of the neighboring cities (including Maricopa County Superior Court)
yields $174,956. Staff recommend adjusting the annual salary up slightly to $175,011.
This would move Phoenix to be competitively positioned in the labor market. This
action is contingent upon changes to the City Code that would authorize such.

Furthermore, recognizing the supervisory responsibilities of the Assistant Chief
Presiding Judge, staff are recommending a base salary calculated at 10 percent above
that of the judges. This results in a salary of $192,504. This action is contingent upon
changes to the City Code that would authorize such.

City Code currently provides for the Court Hearing Officers and Presiding Court
Hearing Officers to receive the same benefits as provided for in the supervisory and
professional pay plan of the City of Phoenix. However, because the roles and
responsibilities are closely tied to the judges, and their base salary is calculated as a
percentage of the judges, it is recommended the benefit package of the Hearing
Officers be revised be to the same as that of the judges, namely the same benefits as
provided for in the middle management pay plan of the City of Phoenix. These actions
are contingent upon changes to the City Code that would authorize such.

The proposed changes to Section 5, paragraph (r) are intended to allow these
classifications to receive salary increases consistent with those afforded to other Unit 9
and 10 employees.

These amendments are effective on Jan. 24, 2022.

Financial Impact
The total estimated cost for the entire proposal is $825,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 612A on Dec. 9, 2021.

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




Page 145



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Classification Plan S-5815 in Accordance with Human
Resources Committee 612B Recommendations (Ordinance S-48256)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Classification Plan [S-5815] are proposed in accordance with the recommendation of
Human Resources Committee 612B. The proposal will also require modifications to
the City’s Pay Ordinance [S-47689] which will be processed under a separate
ordinance.

Modify the classification of Records Clerk II, Job Code: 01120, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 322 ($14.93 - $21.57/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Records Clerk,
Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly).

Modify the assignment of Records Clerk II*Lead, Job Code: 01121, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Records
Clerk*Lead, Grade: 324 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly).

Modify the classification title of Records Clerk III, Job Code: 01130, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade: 026, Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Senior Records Clerk.

Modify the classification of Police Records Clerk, Job Code: 01210, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 322 ($14.93 - $21.57/hourly) Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Grade 323
($15.55 - $22.64/hourly).

Modify the assignment of Police Records Clerk*Lead, Job Code: 01212, Salary Plan:
006, Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code:
003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Grade 324
($16.24 - $23.70/hourly).

Abolish the assignment of Police Records Clerk*Alarms Lead, Job Code: 01215,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade: 024 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly), Benefit Category: 007, Labor


Page 146

Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt.

Establish the classification of Airport Access Agent, Job Code: 01150, Salary Plan:
006, Grade: 324 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code:
003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt.

Summary
Background
Unit 3 requested a study of Records Clerks II. Specifically, the request came from the
10 Records Clerks II positions in the Aviation Public Safety and Security Division, who
issue badges for airport access, because they feel their job duties are broader in
scope than those typical for a Records Clerk.

There are 27 Records Clerk II positions Citywide. 10 of these positions are in Aviation
Public Safety and Security, four are in Aviation Ground Transportation, and the rest are
spread throughout City Clerk, Fire, and the Planning and Development departments.
Turnover and retention are not issues for these positions. There is also one Records
Clerk II*Lead position.

Findings
The Records Clerk II position is not a benchmark classification, easily found in other
agencies, and clerical classifications as the City of Phoenix (Unit 3 has 53), and staff
were unable to find good matches externally. Staff therefore focused on our internal
clerical structure.

Internally, Police Records Clerk and Police Records Clerk*Lead have been in parity
with the Records Clerk II and Records Clerk II*Lead positions since 1999. Staff also
looked at what other classifications in the City handle badging, since it was the
Records Clerks II positions that handle security badging at the airport who initiated this
study. The classifications of Municipal Security Guard*Badge Imaging and Support
Services Aide share badging in the Calvin Goode Bldg. These classifications are grade
324.

Before any of the 20,000 workers at the airport can have unescorted access into the
restricted areas of the airport, federal law requires that they must submit, and pass,
fingerprint criminal history records checks and security threat assessments. The 10
Aviation Public Safety and Security Records Clerks II positions are responsible for
issuing all airport access badges. Under Federal law, these positions are on the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Trusted Agent list and handle personally
identifiable information (PII) and security sensitive information. These specific positions
are distinct from the four Ground Transportation Records Clerks, who are not required


Page 147

to be on the Trusted Agent List and who do not have access to criminal history and
security threat assessment information. Ground Transportation and Public Safety and
Security Records Clerks II positions never fill in for each other as their positions are
not interchangeable.

Conclusions
In the absence of local market data, the recommendations shown will keep internal
alignment among this group of support positions: Airport Access Agents will be
congruent with other badging positions at grade 324, as well as with the Records
Clerk*Lead. Moving Records Clerks and Police Records Clerks up together maintains
their parity, and the one grade increase creates an appropriate grade distinction
between these classifications and the badging positions, which have access to secure
information.

The consultant leading the Citywide classification and compensation study, Koff, will be
conducting a market study beyond the City's local market. Additionally, staff has
recommended that the Koff study look at the City's clerical classification structure in
depth.

These amendments are effective on Jan. 24, 2022.

Financial Impact
The total estimated cost for the entire proposal is $61,420.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 612B on Dec. 9, 2021.

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




Page 148



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amendments to Pay Ordinance S-47689 in Accordance with Human Resources
Committee 612B Recommendations (Ordinance S-48257)

As part of a classification and compensation study, the following amendments to the
Pay Ordinance [S 47689] are proposed in accordance with the recommendation of
Human Resources Committee 612B. The proposal will also require modifications to
the City’s Classification Plan [S-5815], which will be processed under a separate
ordinance.

Modify the classification of Records Clerk II, Job Code: 01120, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 322 ($14.93 - $21.57/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Records Clerk,
Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly).

Modify the assignment of Records Clerk II*Lead, Job Code: 01121, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Records
Clerk*Lead, Grade: 324 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly).

Modify the classification title of Records Clerk III, Job Code: 01130, Salary Plan: 001,
Grade: 026, Benefit Category: 007, Labor Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category:
Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Senior Records Clerk.

Modify the classification of Police Records Clerk, Job Code: 01210, Salary Plan: 006,
Grade: 322 ($14.93 - $21.57/hourly) Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code: 003,
EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Grade 323
($15.55 - $22.64/hourly).

Modify the assignment of Police Records Clerk*Lead, Job Code: 01212, Salary Plan:
006, Grade: 323 ($15.55 - $22.64/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code:
003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt to Grade 324
($16.24 - $23.70/hourly).

Abolish the assignment of Police Records Clerk*Alarms Lead, Job Code: 01215,
Salary Plan: 001, Grade: 024 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly), Benefit Category: 007, Labor


Page 149

Unit Code: 007, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt.

Establish the classification of Airport Access Agent, Job Code: 01150, Salary Plan:
006, Grade: 324 ($16.24 - $23.70/hourly), Benefit Category: 003, Labor Unit Code:
003, EEO-4 Category: Administrative Support, FLSA Status: Non-exempt.

Summary
Background
Unit 3 requested a study of the Records Clerks II position. Specifically, the request
came from the 10 Records Clerks II in the Aviation Public Safety and Security Division,
who issue badges for airport access, because they feel their job duties are broader in
scope than those typical for a Records Clerk.

There are 27 Records Clerk II positions Citywide. 10 of these positions are in Aviation
Public Safety and Security, four are in Aviation Ground Transportation, and the rest are
spread throughout City Clerk, Fire, and the Planning and Development departments.
Turnover and retention are not issues for these positions. There is also one Records
Clerk II*Lead position.

Findings
The Records Clerk II position is not a benchmark classification, easily found in other
agencies, and clerical classifications as the City of Phoenix (Unit 3 has 53), and staff
were unable to find good matches externally. Staff therefore focused on the City's
internal clerical structure.

Internally, the Police Records Clerk and Police Records Clerk*Lead positions have
been in parity with the Records Clerk II and Records Clerk II*Lead positions since
1999. Staff also looked at what other classifications in the City handle badging, since it
was the Records Clerks II positions that handle security badging at the airport who
initiated this study. The classifications of Municipal Security Guard*Badge Imaging and
Support Services Aide share badging in the Calvin Goode Bldg. These classifications
are grade 324.

Before any of the 20,000 workers at the airport can have unescorted access into the
restricted areas of the airport, federal law requires that they must submit, and pass,
fingerprint criminal history records checks and security threat assessments. The 10
Aviation Public Safety and Security Records Clerks II positions are responsible for
issuing all airport access badges. Under Federal law, these positions are on the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) Trusted Agent list and handle personally
identifiable information (PII) and security sensitive information. These specific positions
are distinct from the four Ground Transportation Records Clerks, who are not required


Page 150

to be on the Trusted Agent List and who do not have access to criminal history and
security threat assessment information. Ground Transportation and Public Safety and
Security Records Clerk II positions never fill in for each other as their positions are not
interchangeable.

Conculsions
In the absence of local market data, the recommendations shown will keep internal
alignment among this group of support positions: Airport Access Agents will be
congruent with other badging positions at grade 324, as well as with the Records
Clerk*Lead position. Moving Records Clerks and Police Records Clerks up together
maintains their parity, and the one grade increase creates an appropriate grade
distinction between these classifications and the badging positions, which have access
to secure information.

The consultant leading the Citywide classification and compensation study, Koff, will be
conducting a market study beyond the City's local market. Additionally, staff has
recommended that the Koff study look at the City's clerical classification structure in
depth.

These amendments are effective on Jan. 24, 2022.

Financial Impact
The total estimated cost for the entire proposal is $61,420.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This action was reviewed and recommended for approval by Human Resources
Committee 612B on Dec. 9, 2021.

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




Page 151



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Communications Infrastructure Locating Services - Requirements Contract
(Ordinance S-48251)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Tel Tech Networks, Inc. to purchase communication infrastructure locating
services for the Information Technology Services Department (ITS). Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate
contract value will not exceed $300,000.

Summary
This contract will allow ITS to continue to purchase communication infrastructure
locating services and temporary markings related to underground communications
infrastructure, such as empty conduit, fiber optic cabling and copper cabling. Locating
and marking prior to excavation is required by law to prevent accidental damage or
service interruption by those engaged in subsurface excavations and drilling.

This is an emergency and interim request because these critical services are needed
on a regular basis and the recent contract for these services ended early and abruptly.
The prior contract for this service was awarded through a competitive procurement and
was awarded through April 2024. ITS received a letter from the vendor dated Nov. 23,
2021, stating they were closing their business effective Nov. 30, 2021, due to
unforeseen circumstances. Given the short notice and with no other existing contract
available for use, ITS is requesting a one-year contract to allow time to conduct a new
solicitation for a vendor(s) to provide these services on an ongoing basis. Tel Tech
Networks, Inc. is a current telecommunications vendor under a State of Arizona
cooperative contract and has the experience and resources immediately available to
provide these services.

Establishing this contract will ensure ITS’ underground infrastructure supporting critical
City systems is not damaged and the City is in compliance with laws. Failure to obtain
locating services could result in damages to City owned fiber optic cables, which can
lead to service outages to the City’s internal and external customers who currently use
underground communication cables for voice, data, and video service.




Page 152

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved determination memo citing the sudden and critical need for the
contract.

Contract Term
The one-year contract term will begin on or about Jan. 5, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $300,000 and funds are available in the
Information Technology Services Department's budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Information
Technology Services Department.




Page 153



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Spanish Language Magazine Subscription - Requirements Contract - EXC 22-036
(Ordinance S-48223)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Latin American Periodicals, LLC to purchase Spanish magazine titles for the Library
Department. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000.00.

Summary
The contract will provide more than 30 Spanish magazine titles to the Burton Barr
Central Library and the 16 branches in the Library system. These materials are
important to the Library’s Spanish speaking customers and the Library orders are
based on high demand from patrons’ requests. These materials are not available for
sale in stores or through any other entities.


Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved Determination Memo which stated Latin American Periodicals,
LLC is the only provider of Spanish language magazines and fotonovelas
subscriptions in the United States.

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the contract with Latin American
Periodicals, LLC be accepted.

Contract Term
The 5-year contract term will begin on or about Jan. 5, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000.00 and funds are available in
the Library Department’s budget.

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


Page 154



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
World Book Encyclopedias - Requirements Contract - EXC 22-035 (Ordinance S-
48224)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
World Book, Inc. to purchase World Book Encyclopedias for the Library Department.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000.00.

Summary
The Contractor shall furnish and deliver 18 sets of the most current World Book
Encyclopedias on an annual basis to the City of Phoenix Library Department. The
World Book Encyclopedia set is comprised of 22 volumes each, and this encyclopedia
is purchased for its high quality, current and accurate information.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved Determination Memo which stated World Book, Inc. is the only
vendor who offers this publication.

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the contract with World Book, Inc. be
accepted.

Contract Term
The 5-year contract term will begin on or about Jan. 5, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000.00 and funds are available in
the Library Department’s budget.

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




Page 155



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Retroactive Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Disburse Funding
from the United States Conference of Mayors DollarWise Innovation Grant
Program (Ordinance S-48225)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and, if awarded,
accept funding from the United States Conference of Mayors DollarWise Innovation
Grant Program. The total grant amount is $10,000. Further request to authorize the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this
item for the life of the grant.

Summary
The DollarWise Innovation Grant Program is an economic mobility initiative of the
United States Conference of Mayors designed to provide funding to develop and/or
scale innovative efforts that help working people and families prosper economically,
particularly within under-served and under-represented communities. For Fiscal Year
2022, seven individual grants of $10,000 each will be awarded to cities with innovative
programs or efforts that foster economic mobility and wealth or income growth for their
residents. Applications are due on Dec. 10, 2021.

Contract Term
The grant period is from Jan. 1, 2022, through Dec. 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding will be provided by the United States
Conference of Mayors. No matching funds are required.

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




Page 156



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Retroactive Authorization to Apply for and Accept Lifelong Arts Engagement
Grant (Ordinance S-48231)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for a
Lifelong Arts Engagement Grant in an amount not to exceed $10,000 and, if approved,
accept funding from the Arizona Commission on the Arts. Further request to authorize
the City Treasurer to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to
this item. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The Arizona Commission on the Arts Lifelong Arts Engagement Grant seeks to
enhance the work of community and social service organizations and governmental
entities through projects that foster meaningful arts learning experiences in community
settings for adult learners. Lifelong Arts Engagement grants encompass a Creative
Aging component intended to use arts and creative expression to improve the quality
of life for older adults. The project, “Stories of My Life in Words and Art,” will allow
senior center members to partner with a professional artist/instructor who will assist in
bringing their personal histories to life in a creative and engaging manner. This
program aligns with improving the quality of life for seniors through holistic and
coordinated activities.

The grant notification was issued in mid-October with the application due Nov. 10,
2021.

Contract Term
The grant period is Jan. 1, 2022, through June 30, 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding in a total of amount of $10,000 will be
provided by the Arizona Commission on the Arts if the City's grant application is
approved. No matching funds are required.

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


Page 157



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Community Development Block Grant Neighborhood Commercial Rehabilitation
Program Loan Agreement (Ordinance S-48233)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a loan agreement
with Ricardo Sosa for up to $150,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program funds for facade and site improvements to Salon Sosa through the
Neighborhood Commercial Rehabilitation program, and to take all actions and execute
all documents necessary to complete the loan. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds associated with this agreement. The CDBG program is
funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; no General
Funds are required.

Summary
The Neighborhood Commercial Rehabilitation (NCR) program offers CDBG funding for
property owners to complete exterior improvements through a deferred loan, secured
by a Deed of Trust, which is forgiven over a period of up to 10 years. The program was
approved by City Council through Ordinance S-46657 as part of the 2020-24 CDBG
Consolidated Plan. NCR projects are selected through an open application process.

The goal of the NCR program is to support the revitalization or improvement of
commercial buildings along targeted neighborhood business corridors to ensure the
long-term sustainability of the community, its businesses and structures. Eligible
economic revitalization projects must provide a public benefit or deliver neighborhood
enhancements including job creation for local residents, blight elimination, or the
provision of qualified goods or services to residents of targeted, low- and moderate-
income areas in Phoenix.

Salon Sosa is a full-service salon offering a wide range of personal care services,
including haircuts and scalp treatments. Salon Sosa has served the South Phoenix
area since 2010; and retains four full-time positions. Located along the proposed
South-Central Light Rail corridor/line, the property owner desires to create a more
appealing storefront to attract customers and enhance the neighborhood aesthetic.




Page 158

Financial Impact
The CDBG program is funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development; there is no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Community and Cultural Investment
Subcommittee on Dec. 1, 2021, by a vote of 4 to 0.

Location
6834 S. Central Ave.
Council District: 7

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




Page 159



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request Authorization to Apply for, Accept and Disburse Funding from American
Forests for Tree Planting in Phoenix (Ordinance S-48253)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept donations from
American Forests to support tree planting projects in the City of Phoenix. Further
request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse,
all funds related to this item including transfers to 501(c)(3) program partners Keep
Phoenix Beautiful, Trees Matter, and the Arizona Sustainability Alliance as needed.
Funding received will not exceed $500,000.

Summary
American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit conservation organization in the
United States. Since its founding in 1875, they have been the pathfinders for creating
healthy forests from coast to coast.

Today, American Forests is focused on building a reforestation movement in America,
by partnering with cities to grow the urban forest in neighborhoods that need it most--
heat vulnerable communities that have a limited tree canopy. American Forests has
established connections with businesses and philanthropy desiring to invest in
vulnerable communities, and has selected a handful of communities to partner with,
including Phoenix-given our clear goals, a growing investment in the urban forest, and
vision for the path forward. The partnership was formalized in April 21, 2021, when the
(MOU) to work together to increase tree equity in Phoenix neighborhoods.

As part of that MOU, American Forests has been actively fundraising with businesses
and philanthropy to support tree equity in Phoenix. To date, they have received funding
for cool corridors and other tree planting projects in Phoenix totaling more than
$260,000 from funding partners such as Salesforce, iHeart Radio and Aspiration Bank.
As new projects get identified, and in support of the MOU, American Forest will
continue to fundraise on behalf of Phoenix.

Staff is seeking approval to receive up to $500,000 in funds from our partner, American
Forests, to support tree planting in Phoenix, in City parks, streets, schools, and
neighborhoods through City departments and through our active tree non-profit 501(c)


Page 160

(3) community partners: Keep Phoenix Beautiful, Trees Matter, and the Arizona
Sustainability Alliance.

The initial tranche of donations from American Forests will support projects in areas
with low tree equity scores, including tree planting at City parks, residential planting
projects with the Neighborhood Services Department and our non-profit community
partners, tree planting and landscape improvements at schools, and streetscape
improvements in residential areas in support of the Cool Corridors goal.

Financial Impact
All funds received from American Forests will be deposited in the tree donation cost
center and managed and reported on annually by the Office of Heat Response and
Mitigation. Funding will be distributed to City departments and program partners
identified in this report.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Memorandum of Understanding with American Forests
on April 21, 2021, by a vote of 9-0.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Offices of
Sustainability and Heat Response and Mitigation.




Page 161



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Local First Arizona Incubator Kitchen Sponsorship (Ordinance S-48238)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a sponsorship to
expand Local First Arizona’s incubator kitchen concept to the Rio Salado College
Thomas campus located at 3631 W. Thomas Rd., and to execute a Sponsorship
Agreement, or other instrument deemed appropriate, with Local First Arizona (LFA), or
its City-approved designee. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. Funding for this one-time sponsorship will not exceed
$80,000. 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
LFA is a nonprofit organization committed to community and economic development
throughout Arizona. LFA's work connects people, locally-owned businesses, and
communities for meaningful actions that build a diverse, inclusive and prosperous
Arizona economy. Through its incubator kitchens in Mesa and south Phoenix, LFA
provides eligible food entrepreneurs looking to start or grow their businesses with
access to fully equipped and licensed kitchen space at a low cost. LFA broadly defines
food entrepreneurs as restaurateurs, food truck operators, bakeries and caterers. To
be eligible to use the incubator kitchen, a food entrepreneur's place of business or
home-based business must be located in a Qualified Census Tract.

For this opportunity, LFA is partnering with Rio Salado College, a Maricopa Community
College, to amplify efforts to grow food businesses in west Phoenix with a new
incubator kitchen facility. Rio Salado has an existing kitchen at 3631 W. Thomas Rd.
that does not currently meet building code requirements. The City's sponsorship will
fund a new walk-in cooler as part of the renovations that will annually provide
approximately 125 entrepreneurs with the physical resources needed to grow their
businesses.

The development of this new incubator kitchen facility will be leveraged to implement
business development and technical assistance programs aimed at rebuilding the
restaurant industry and strengthening the food economy in an under-resourced area of


Page 162

Phoenix. This location will also host LFA's Restaurant Startup Boot Camp, a seven-
week course aimed at strengthening existing food businesses to ensure profitability,
consistency, and growth. Participants will receive education and mentorship on a
variety of topics related to developing a profitable business such as food costing, menu
planning, marketing, human resources, and branding. The Restaurant Startup Boot
Camp enables entrepreneurs to develop their products and grow their client bases in
an affordable setting with both staff and peer-driven feedback and coaching. Rio
Salado College will provide the existing building, classroom space, and community
college credit for students who complete the Restaurant Startup Boot Camp course.

This sponsorship, which will include standard city terms and conditions, embodies the
Community and Economic Development Department's mission to stimulate economic
activity by offering a diverse range of value-added business and workforce solutions to
build, revitalize, and sustain a quality community for Phoenix businesses and
residents. Furthermore, this investment aligns with the work of the Phoenix Business
and Workforce Development Board and its support of and focus on entrepreneurship
training services and opportunities in Phoenix.

Contract Term
The Sponsorship Agreement with LFA will be for one year after initiation of services.

Financial Impact
The City's one-time sponsorship payment to LFA for the cost of a new walk-in cooler
will not exceed $80,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available
through the City’s allocation of ARPA funds received from the federal government.

Location
3631 W. Thomas Rd.
District: 4

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Community
and Economic Development Department.




Page 163



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Improvement and Escrow Agreement with South 99th Ave. LP and
Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company NCS (Ordinance S-48250)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an improvement
and escrow agreement and any other agreements as necessary (Agreements), with
George Oliver Industrial, doing business as South 99th Ave, LP, or its City-approved
designee (Developer) and Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company NCS, or its
City-approved designee (Escrow) for installation of public infrastructure improvements,
outdoor space improvements, and dedication of public right-of-way (ROW) or
easements, and holding in escrow an amount equal to 150 percent of the estimated
cost to complete offsite improvements which include necessary roadway
improvements along 99th Avenue and relocation of an existing irrigation ditch until
such work is completed. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept such
funds if the required work is not completed under the terms of the Agreement.

Summary
Developer would like to construct approximately 2.5 million square feet of new Class A
Industrial product in three to four buildings on approximately 147 acres at the
southeast corner of 99th Avenue and Buckeye Road (Project). On 99th Avenue, along
the frontage of the Project, is a USA Fee Title irrigation ditch that is required to be
relocated. The lengthy process required to relocate the ditch involves approval of the
relocation plan by both the federal Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project. This
process can typically take 18 to 24 months and must be completed before permits can
be pulled and Project construction can commence. The subject of the current request
pertains to the speed of which the Developer can pull permits and commence
construction of the Project. Currently, vacancy rates for available industrial buildings
are at historic lows. Not having this type of readily available space could result in high-
wage employers looking at markets outside of Phoenix.

To continue to attract high-wage employers, staff has devised a mechanism to allow
the Developer to move forward with the Project. Subject to City Council approval, the
following major business terms have been negotiated with the Developer and would be
implemented through the Agreements:

· Developer will construct necessary roadway improvements on 99th Avenue along


Page 164

the frontage of the Project;
· Developer will relocate the USA Fee Title irrigation ditch along 99th Avenue to the
subject property outside of any future proposed ROW;
· Developer will deposit 150 percent of the cost of the offsite improvements, in an
amount approved by the City Engineer but estimated at $12,000,000, into Escrow;
· Developer may, with City's approval, deposit 150 percent of the offsite
improvements in phases, for the portions of the Project that Developer is planning
to commence construction;
· City will allow Developer to pull permits and commence construction on the phases
of the Project for which it has deposited 150 percent of the offsite improvements
into escrow before approvals for the relocation of the irrigation ditch is complete;
· The development will not request Certificate of Occupancy from the City for any
building until the USA Fee Title irrigation ditch has been relocated, constructed, and
accepted by both the City and Bureau of Reclamation;
· Developer will leave up to 150 percent of funds required to complete the offsite
improvements in case the City assumes responsibility to complete the required
improvements;
· The Developer will provide the necessary dedications to the City, at no charge, in
the event that the City assumes responsibility to complete the required
improvements;
· Upon completion of the offsite improvements, any remaining funds in the account
will be disbursed to the Developer by Escrow;
· Offsite improvements are scheduled to be completed by June 1, 2023; and
· Other terms and conditions deemed necessary and/or appropriate at the City's
discretion.

Contract Term
Developer will use diligent, good faith efforts, subject to Force Majeure Delays, to
substantially complete the offsite improvements by June 1, 2023.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City. If the offsite improvements are not completed
by the Developer as required, the City will accept the Escrow funds to complete the
required improvements.

Location
Southeast corner of Buckeye Road and 99th Avenue.
Council District: 7




Page 165

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Mario Paniagua,
and the Community and Economic Development and Street Transportation
departments.




Page 166



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Hotel Revenue Bonds (CFC- Central Hotel, LLC Project), Series 2022
(Resolution 21985)

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Hotel Revenue Bonds (CFC-
Central Hotel, LLC Project), Series 2022, to be issued in one or more tax-exempt
and/or taxable series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $60,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution granting approval of the proceedings
under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the
"Phoenix IDA") has previously resolved to issue up to $60,000,000 of Hotel Revenue
Bonds (the "Revenue Bonds") for use by CFC-Central Hotel, LLC (the "Borrower"), an
Arizona limited liability company, to

a) finance, and/or refinance as applicable, a portion of the acquisition, installation,
improvement, and equipping of Hilton brand hotels in Phoenix, Arizona, and
b) pay certain costs related to the issuance of the Revenue Bonds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its
meeting held on December 20, 2021.

Location
The Project is located at or near 3150 North Central Ave. in Phoenix, Ariz.

With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.

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




Page 167



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Issuance of Commercial Facilities Revenue Bonds (Overland Crossing Project),
Taxable Series 2022 (Resolution 21986)

Requests City Council approval for the issuance of Commercial Facilities Revenue
Bonds (Overland Crossing Project), Taxable Series 2022, to be issued in one or more
series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $30,000,000.

Summary
Request City Council adoption of a resolution granting approval of the proceedings
under which The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Phoenix, Arizona (the
"Phoenix IDA") has previously resolved to issue up to $30,000,000 of Commercial
Facilities Revenue Bonds (the "Revenue Bonds") for use by Legacy OC LLC (the
"Borrower), a Kansas limited liability company, to

a) finance the acquisition, construction, improvement, and equipping of a commercial
development in Overland Park, Kansas, and
b) pay certain costs related to the issuance of the Revenue Bonds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board has previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its
meeting held on December 14, 2021.

Location
The Project is located at or near 119 Street and Metcalf Avenue, Overland Park, Kan.

With the exception of certain housing bonds, the Phoenix IDA can finance projects
located anywhere in Arizona. In addition, the Phoenix IDA may issue bonds to finance
projects outside of Arizona, if the out-of-state project provides a benefit within the
State.

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




Page 168



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Custodial Services Contract - Request for Award (Ordinance S-48234)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Trooper USA, to provide custodial services for the Phoenix Convention Center
Department (PCCD). Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will not exceed $7,403,672
over the term of the agreement.

Summary
This contract will provide professional custodial services including labor, cleaning
supplies, equipment and the necessary supervision to clean the Phoenix Convention
Center facilities, Symphony Hall, Orpheum Theatre and the Herberger Theater Center.
The PCCD campus encompasses more than 2 million square feet of interior space,
which includes lobbies, restrooms, casual dining areas, audience chambers and
dressing rooms that need cleaned and sanitized after use. Since the onset of COVID-
19, cleaning and sanitization standards have become a focal point for our clients and
the hundreds of thousands of guests that attend events at the Phoenix Convention
Center and Venues.

Procurement Information
This recommendation was made using a Request for Proposal procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Seven vendors submitted proposals and are listed below. All proposals were found to
be responsive and responsible.

The evaluation panel recommendations were reached by consensus in consideration
of published selection criteria with total points ranging from 0 - 1,000:

Operations Plan: 0 - 275 Points
Quality Assurance Program/Correction Capability: 0 - 250 Points
Experience and Qualifications: 0 - 275 Points
Cost: 0 - 200 Points




Page 169

The following offeror is selected for award:

Selected Vendor:
Trooper USA

Additional Proposers
S.Sarkissian Co.
DetailXperts
3H Service System
ISS Facility Service Inc.
Allied Universal Janitorial Service
Paramount Building Solutions

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 6, 2022, for a five-year aggregate term
with no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The contract value for Trooper USA will not exceed $ 7,403,672 for the five-year
aggregate term.

Funding is available in the Phoenix Convention Center Department operating budget.

Location
Phoenix Convention Center, 100 N. 3rd Street and 33 S. 3rd Street
Symphony Hall, 75 N. 2nd Street
Orpheum Theatre, 203 W. Adams Street
Herberger Theater Center, 222 E. Monroe Street

Council District(s): Districts 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Phoenix
Convention Center Department.




Page 170



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Guest Speaker Services - Lionel Crowther (Ordinance S-48255)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a five-year
contract with Lionel Crowther for the provision of Guest Speaker Services for the Fire
Department’s Training Academy Section. The aggregate contract value will not exceed
$22,500. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.

Summary
Lionel Crowther is a Lieutenant/Acting Captain from Winnipeg Fire Department and an
International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF) Fire Ground Survival Master Instructor.
In 2007, Lionel’s life changed when his crew was involved in an incident that resulted
in the loss of two captains; Lionel sustained burns to 70 percent of his body.

Mr. Crowther will speak on the topic of this incident with the Phoenix Fire Department
recruit academy classes as requested and available.

During his presentation, Lionel discusses in great detail the tragic incident, challenges
and triumphs he and his family have overcome, and focuses on firefighter survival,
prevention and preparation for mayday incidents, and helping surviving firefighters that
may have suffered burns in the line of duty.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived,
citing a determination memo - without competition.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about January 5, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $22,500; funds are available in the Fire
Department’s budget.

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


Page 171



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Convert Temporary Full-Time Positions to Regular Full-Time
Positions to Support the Police Department Centralized Booking Detail
(Ordinance S-48248)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to convert 22 temporary full-
time positions to regular full-time positions in the Police Department. No General Fund
dollars are requested because funding is already available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Summary
As part of the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Annual Budget Process, the Police Department
Centralized Booking Detail received 22 temporary full-time positions: four Detention
Supervisors and 18 Detention Officer positions. The positions were added as part of
the continued civilianization efforts of the department, to provide operational
efficiencies and allow sworn officers to be redeployed to higher priorities of the
Department.

The Centralized Booking Detail has struggled to hire temporary Detention Supervisors
and Detention Officers since July 1, 2021. Multiple jurisdictions are competing for the
same qualified candidates and are offering permanent employment compared to the

Converting the 22 temporary full-time positions to regular full-time positions is critical to
the hiring success of the Police Department Centralized Booking Detail. Once the 22
positions are filled and trained, the sergeants and officers can be redeployed to higher
priorities of the department. See Attachment A for the positions being requested to be
converted.

Financial Impact
No financial impact. Funding is already available in the Police Department’s budget.

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




Page 172
Attachment A
Police Department
Centralized Booking Detail Position Conversions



Position Job code Job Grade
Detention Supervisors (4) 62150 031
Detention Officers (18) 62130 328




Page 173



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Airport FAA Consultant Contract Solicitation Request to Issue

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals to seek a contract with an Airport FAA Concessions Consultant to meet
Federal compliance requirements for monitoring of disadvantaged business
enterprises. The total amount will not exceed $560,000 for the five-year term.

Summary
As a large hub primary airport, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) is
required to have Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) and Airport Concession
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE) programs. As a condition of eligibility for
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) financial assistance, the City of Phoenix (City) is
required to submit its DBE and ACDBE programs and overall goals to the FAA. In
addition, the City must conduct regular compliance reviews to ensure airport
businesses meet Federal compliance requirements.

The Equal Opportunity Department (EOD) seeks to issue a Request for Proposals
(RFP) seeking a qualified firm to provide Airport FAA Concessions Consultant services.
The Successful Offeror will perform services for the City's DBE, ACDBE, and other
programs on an as-needed basis.

Procurement Information
On behalf of the EOD, the Aviation Department will conduct an RFP process to select
the highest-scoring, responsive, and responsible Offeror that provides the best value
to the City.

Responsive and Responsible Offerors will:
· Submit an offer to address the Airport’s DBE and ACDBE consulting needs;
· Offer evidence of at least three years of experience in last five providing DBE and
ACDBE consulting services;
· Demonstrate experience working with the United States Department of
Transportation; and
· Offer evidence of experience working with DBE, ACDBE, and Small Business
Enterprise Disparity studies.



Page 174

Responsive and Responsible Offerors will be evaluated according to the following
evaluation criteria:
· Method of Approach to demonstrate the Offeror's ability and approach to
accomplish the project objectives;
· Qualifications and Experience of firm and key personnel assigned to the project;
and
· Price Schedule for primary and principal consultants, subcontract reviews, summary
reports, and certification processing.

Contract Term
The contract term will not exceed an aggregate five-year term with no option to extend.

Financial Impact
The aggregate amount will not exceed $560,000 for the five-year contract term.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Nov.
18, 2021, by a vote of 7-0.
· The Transportation, Infrastructure, and Planning Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval of this item on Dec. 15, 2021, by a vote of 3-0.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
and the Aviation and Equal Opportunity departments.




Page 175



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Goodyear Airport Infield Paving Phase I - Engineering Services - AV41000079
ADOT (Ordinance S-48220)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with TRACE Consulting, LLC to provide Engineering Services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection services for the Goodyear Airport
Infield Paving Phase I 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 $310,000.

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 relating to the
development, design and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to implement one of the recommendations of the 2018
Master Plan Update to pave Goodyear Airport infields between Runway 3-21 and
adjacent to Taxiway A (areas between taxiway connectors: A2 and A3; A3 and A4; and
A8 and A9) as a safety improvement to mitigate the dangers of jet blast and prop-
washing blowing around foreign object debris and to improve ease of maintenance in
the infields.

TRACE Consulting, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: provide design
services, cost estimating, and specifications; assist with bidding for a Design-Bid-Build
delivery method; perform detailed survey of the limits of asphalt concrete paving;
geotechnical analysis; complete Engineer's Report required for Federal Aviation


Page 176

Administration (FAA), Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT), and Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) grant compliance; provide construction administration and
inspection services per AIP and FAA/ADOT grant requirements; review contractor
shop/record drawings and submittals; verify compliance with contract documents;
prepare inspection reports; conduct warranty inspection; and other tasks for a
complete project. Goodyear Airport may opt to extend design services to other infields
in future Phases 2 and 3.

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. Four firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: TRACE Consulting, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Dibble & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. dba Dibble
Rank 3: RS&H, Inc.
Rank 4: Armstrong Consultants, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the 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 TRACE Consulting, LLC will not exceed $310,000, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

The Aviation Department anticipates State Grant Funding for this project. Funding is
available in the Aviation 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.




Page 177

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 178



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 2022 Airside Pavement Assessment -
Engineering Services - AV09000100 (Ordinance S-48230)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Applied Pavement Technology, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include
assessment and study services for the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport 2022
Airside Pavement Assessment 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 $425,000.

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 relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to inspect pavement surfaces and develop a pavement-
maintenance plan for City airports to meet Federal Aviation Administration
requirements for receiving federal funds for pavement projects.

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc's. services will include, but are not limited to:
conduct field condition pavement inspections; develop Airport Pavement Management
System reports; develop a Pavement Maintenance Management Program; update
MicroPAVER database inventory; revise existing network maps; provide pavement
condition surveys and update condition portion of database; perform pavement
inventory and develop program funding; prepare maintenance and rehabilitation
reports for all areas of the airport; develop a preferred rehabilitation strategy that


Page 179

considers pavement performance and a life-cycle cost analysis; and coordinate
projects with airport user groups.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) section 34-603. In accordance with A.R.S. 34-603
(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received or the scoring
results until an agreement is awarded. One firm submitted a proposal and is listed
below.

Selected Firm:
Rank 1: Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from the 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 Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. will not exceed $425,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

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

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8

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




Page 180



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ground Lease with 4LWM LLC at 2949 E. Washington St. (Ordinance S-48242)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a ground lease
with 4LWM LLC for up to approximately 16,000 square feet of a paved parking lot at
2949 E. Washington St. for two years with three one-year options to extend the term
that may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of Aviation Services.

Summary
The City owns the property located at 2949 E. Washington St. (APN 121-80-002B)
which includes a vacant building and a fenced and paved parking lot south of the
building. 4LWM LLC is currently using approximately 8,000 square feet of the parking
lot for storage of the company’s container studio complex and related items under
Temporary Parking Lot License Agreement 155065. 4LWM LLC now desires to lease
up to approximately 16,000 square feet of the parking lot for the same purpose under a
Lease.

Contract Term
The term of the lease will be two years with three one-year options to extend the term
that may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of Aviation Services.

Financial Impact
Rent for the first year will be approximately $16,800 ($1.05 per square foot) and will be
adjusted annually based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer Price Index or
three percent, whichever is greater. Total anticipated revenue over the term of the
lease will be approximately $84,000, if all options are exercised.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Nov. 18,
2021, by a vote of 7-0.

Location
2949 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8




Page 181

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




Page 182



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Deer Valley Airport Blast Pads - Engineering Services (Re-advertisement) -
AV31000094 FAA/ADOT (Ordinance S-48243)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include
design and possible construction administration and inspection services for the Deer
Valley Airport Blast Pads 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 $190,000.

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 relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise 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 bring the blast pads for runways 7L/25R and 7R/25L
at Deer Valley Airport up to standards established by current Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) Advisory Circulars. A blast pad is defined as the surface adjacent
to the ends of the runway provided to reduce the erosive effect of jet blast and
propeller wash.

Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: analyze
pavement strength; design cost-efficient and expeditiously constructed solutions;
design and issue project plans and specifications; prepare construction estimates,
construction safety plans, and required documentation to submit for FAA and Arizona
Department of Transportation (ADOT) grant compliance; complete the engineer's


Page 183

report required for FAA, ADOT, and Airport Improvement Program grant compliance;
provide bid-phase assistance during the design-bid-build delivery method; and provide
possible construction administration and inspection services to include review of
contractor shop drawings and submittals; verify compliance with contract documents;
conduct pre-final and final inspections; conduct warranty inspections; and perform
other services as needed for a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. One firm submitted a proposal
and is listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may
be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. will not exceed $190,000,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for this project. 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
702 W. Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1

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



Page 184



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport New Crossfield Taxiway U -
Engineering Services - AV08000085 FAA (Ordinance S-48244)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Gannett Fleming, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include assessment,
design, and possible construction administration and inspection services for the
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport New Crossfield Taxiway U 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
$23,220,000.

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 relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise 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 modify each of the following: the existing Facilities and
Services complex, ramp and building air-cargo facilities, roadways, taxiway structure
and airfield, and utilities. In 2020, the Aviation Department completed the New West
Crossfield Taxiway Conceptual Design and Program Report to highlight important
project considerations.

Gannett Fleming, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: coordination with all
City departments, Aviation sections, and the Construction Manager at Risk;
environmental services as required; archaeological review and design; resolution of
utility conflicts; LED lighting, markings and signage; project phasing and roadway


Page 185

modifications; mechanical, architectural, civil, geotechnical, structural, and survey
project-related services; updated electrical and drainage plans; construction safety
plans, and all required documentation for submittal to local, state, and federal entities;
the Engineer's Design and Construction Report required for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grant; cost estimates;
and possible construction administration and inspection services to include review of
contractor shop drawings and submittals; testing and certifications for structural
subgrade and Portland Cement Concrete Pavement per AIP and FAA compliance and
requirements; compliance with contract documents; daily inspection reports for FAA;
pre-final and final inspections; warranty inspections; and other services as needed for
a complete project.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-603 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-603(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Three firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Gannett Fleming, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Dibble & Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Rank 3: AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope identified and incorporated into the agreement 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 Gannett Fleming, Inc. will not exceed $23,220,000, including
all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget. The Aviation Department anticipates grant funding for this project. 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.


Page 186


Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.
Council District: 8

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




Page 187



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ground Lease with Eclat Countertops LLC at 3214 E. Jefferson St. (Ordinance S-
48245)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a ground lease
with Eclat Countertops LLC for 7,680 square feet at 3214 E. Jefferson St. for two years
with two one-year options to extend the term that may be exercised at the sole
discretion of the Director of Aviation Services. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.

Summary
Eclat Countertops LLC is located at 13 South 32nd Street. Tenant requests to lease
the City owned property at 3214 E. Jefferson St. (APN 121-21-020) for the purposes of
storing granite and stone slabs for Tenant's business. In addition, Tenant may install
additional fencing to further secure the site.

Contract Term
The term will be for two years with two one-year options to extend the term that may
be exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of Aviation Services.

Financial Impact
Rent for the first year will be approximately $8,064 ($1.05 per square foot) and will be
adjusted based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer Price Index. Total
anticipated revenue over the term of the lease will be approximately $32,256, if all
options are exercised.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended City Council approval of this item
on Dec. 16, 2021, by vote of 8-0.

Location
3214 E. Jefferson St.
Council District: 8

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

Page 188



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ground Lease with Custom Pipe & Fabrication, Inc. at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport - Amendment (Ordinance S-48246)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
ground lease 151989 with Custom Pipe & Fabrication, LLC at 2739 E. Washington
Street, to extend the term to April 28, 2024 by adding two additional one-year options
to extend.

Summary
Custom Pipe & Fabrication, Inc., is located at 302 S. 28th Street, and they currently
lease 70,000 square feet of paved property at 2739 E. Washington Street for the
storage of piping products. Tenant is requesting two additional one-year options to be
added to the lease.

Contract Term
The current contract term is two years, expiring April 28, 2022, with no options to
extend. The term may be extended to April 28, 2024, if two additional one-year
extension options are exercised at the discretion of the Aviation Director. The contract
also has a 30-day cancellation notice by either party.

Financial Impact
Rent will be approximately $77,976 per year ($1.11 per square foot). Rent will be
adjusted annually based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer Price Index or
three percent, whichever is greater. Total anticipated rent over the term of the lease will
be approximately $158,291, if all options are exercised.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Ground Lease 151989 (Ordinance S-46387) on Feb. 19,
2020.

The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item for approval on Nov. 18,
2021, by a vote of 7-0.

Location
2739 E. Washington St.


Page 189

Council District: 8

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




Page 190



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Ground Lease with SGP Deer Valley LLC at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport
(Ordinance S-48249)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter in to a ground lease
with SGP Deer Valley LLC for up to 175,000 square feet of land at Phoenix Deer Valley
Airport for 30 years with two five-year options to extend the term, that may be
exercised by the Director of Aviation Services. Further request to authorize the City
Treasurer to accept all funds related to this item.

Summary
SGP Deer Valley LLC (SGP) specializes in constructing facilities for sublease to United
States Government agencies. SGP has requested to lease up to 175,000 square feet
(approximately 4 acres) of land at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport to construct a hangar
and related supporting facilities for sublease to the U.S. Government.

Contract Term
The term of the lease will be 30 years which may include two five-year options to
extend the term which may be exercised at the sole discretion of the Director of
Aviation Services.

Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the lease will be approximately $94,500 ($0.54 per square
foot) and will be adjusted annually based on the Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Consumer
Price Index. Total anticipated revenue over the 30-year primary term of the lease will
be approximately $2,835,000.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended this item to the Phoenix City
Council at the Board's meeting on Nov. 18, 2021 by a vote of 7-0.

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




Page 191

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




Page 192



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Vehicle Lifts and Garage Equipment Contract - Amendment (Ordinance S-48219)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149534 with Mohawk Lifts, LLC, to provide additional funding for purchase of
additional replacement vehicle lifts and garage equipment for the Public Works
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $239,089.

Summary
The Public Works Department programmed additional funding in the Capital
Improvement Program to support replacement of additional vehicle lifts and garage
equipment that was not anticipated when the cooperative purchasing agreement was
originally adopted.

This cooperative purchasing agreement was originally adopted for use by the Public
Works Department to supply a variety of vehicle lift and garage equipment for
automotive repair facilities. The types of equipment include wheel balancers, tire
removal/installation machines, automotive lifts, and jacks.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on March 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Contract 149534 was for an expenditure not to exceed
$325,000. This amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an
additional $239,089, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $564,089.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's Operating and Capital
Improvement Program budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 149534 (Ordinance S-45462) on March 20, 2019.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.

Page 193



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Industrial-Commercial Doors Service and Supply - Requirements Contract - IFB
18-205A (Ordinance S-48236)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148635 with DH Pace Company Inc., and Contract
148636 with Miner LTD for the purchase of Industrial-Commercial Doors Service and
Supply for Citywide use. Further request authorization for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$2,578,000.

Summary
This contract provides the City of Phoenix with equipment, labor and materials to
perform all operations necessary to implement a preventative maintenance program,
as-needed repairs, and replace existing door systems, as necessary, to approximately
800 industrial-commercial doors for Citywide buildings/facilities protection and security.
The contract is utilized Citywide, with primary usage by Public Works and the Fire
departments, who have seen increases in service and repairs, mainly due to the aging
infrastructure of their facilities. Due to these unforeseen circumstances, the original
contract amount was under-estimated and additional funds are now necessary.

Contract Term
The contract term is Nov. 1, 2018 through Oct. 31, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2,578,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $5,078,000. Funds are available in various departmental
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Oct. 17, 2018.

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




Page 194



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Paint Striping and Waterblasting Equipment Replacement Parts - Requirements
Contract IFB 22-049 (Ordinance S-48222)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Waterblasting LLC dba Hogs Technologies to purchase Paint Striping and
Waterblasting Equipment Parts - Hog SH7500 for the Street Transportation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The total contract value will not exceed $355,000.

Summary
The Traffic Services Division, Signing and Striping Section owns a Hog Technologies
SH7500 Waterblasting/Obliteration Truck, Unit 928048. This truck removes old paint,
thermoplastic, and tape from City streets so the roadways can be re-striped and
reconfigured as necessary for the safety of the citizens of the City of Phoenix. The
requirements contract will allow the Signing and Striping Section to procure
replacement parts to keep the vehicle and operation functioning as intended.

Procurement Information
IFB 22-049 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. The
Procurement Division received one offer on Oct. 20, 2021, which was evaluated on
price, responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the required
goods and services. The bid notification was sent to 22 suppliers and was publicly
posted and available for download from the City's website.

The price was determined to be fair and reasonable based on City of Phoenix
historical purchases for Hogs brand parts. The awarded vendor is the sole
manufacturer of the parts compatible with Waterblasting/Obliteration Truck Stripe Hog
SH7500.

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that Waterblasting LLC dba Hogs
Technologies be accepted as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible offer.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about Dec. 15, 2021.



Page 195

Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed $355,000.

Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department’s Operating budget.

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




Page 196



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
April 2022 Proposed Bus Service Improvements (Ordinance S-48240)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to implement the April 2022
bus service changes. If approved, the service changes will take effect April 25, 2022.

Summary
The proposed change recommended by the Public Transit Department (PTD) is to the
MARY (Maryvale Area Ride for You) neighborhood circulator, which began operations
in July 2007 to provide local circulator service for the Maryvale Village area in west
Phoenix. This proposed change, which would partially serve the Estrella Village and
provide service to the area bounded by Roosevelt and Fillmore streets between 59th
and 63rd avenues, is a result of input received from west local residents during the
2021 City budget community meetings.

Current Service
The MARY service runs every 60 minutes daily from 5 a.m. - 6 p.m. on Monday -
Friday, and 6 a.m. - 5 p.m. on Saturday and Sunday (times indicate the start of first or
last trips).

Currently, the route requires four circulator vehicles to operate and runs both clockwise
and counterclockwise, between the boundaries of 47th and 91st avenues and from
Encanto Boulevard to Campbell Avenue. The entire route takes 90 minutes to
complete.

Proposed Change
After working with the local community and exploring different extension options for
feasibility and efficiency, PTD proposes to extend the MARY south on 59th Avenue to
Fillmore Street, and then return to the current routing (Attachment A).

Per FTA regulations, a Title VI Service Equity Analysis was conducted to analyze if the
proposed change causes a disparate impact on minority populations or yields a
disproportionate burden towards low-income populations. The result of the analysis
finds that the MARY reroute proposal does not qualify as a major service change and
would not have significant negative impact to minority or low-income populations.



Page 197

Financial Impact
The proposed service changes will increase PTD’s operating expenses by $272,000
annually, with the Fiscal Year 2021-22 cost estimated to be $51,000 for the period of
April 25 - June 30, 2022.

Funding is available in the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Public Transit operating budget for the
current year amount and in the Fiscal Year 2022-23 proposed operating budget for the
first full year amount in the Transportation 2050 fund. Staff is also working on the
acquisition of two new circulator vehicles that will be required to support the extension
of this route; these capital costs are estimated at $300,000 for the two vehicles.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval at the Citizen's Transportation Commission
meeting on Nov. 18, 2021, by a vote of 11-0.

This item was recommended for approval at the Transportation, Infrastructure and
Planning Subcommittee on Dec. 15, 2021, by a vote of 3-0.

Public Outreach
PTD uses the locally adopted public outreach process to solicit feedback from the
overall public on the proposed service changes. Phoenix and Valley Metro staff
conducted in-person and virtual outreach events, and they are utilizing posters and A-
Frame signs placed at key areas along the route to notify the public of the proposed
changes and direct passengers to visit Valley Metro’s website to submit comments
through Dec. 5, 2021.

The proposed changes were advertised via social media, interactive webinars, and a
public hearing held Nov. 16, 2021.

There were 117 total comments and suggestions received about Phoenix’s proposed
service changes, with 60 registering a positive or negative opinion on this specific
change; the remaining comments were marked as neutral on the proposal. The
following summarizes the feedback:
· Yes - 57
· No - 3

Location
Council Districts: 4, 5 and 7




Page 198

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




Page 199
Attachment A - MARY Proposed Service Change Map




Page 200



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Transit Vehicle Decommissioning Services Contract Award (Ordinance S-48241)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Variety Paint and Body, Inc. for transit vehicle decommissioning services. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the contract will not exceed $685,125.

Summary
The Contractor will provide vehicle decommissioning services prior to sending transit
vehicles to the City's contracted auction yard for sale to the public after the vehicles
have reached or exceeded their useful lives. Primary services will be removing exterior
markings and decals from vehicles, and repainting areas as needed in order to ensure
all transit-related markings are removed prior to a vehicle's final disposition. Additional
services may include tasks such as removing on-board, transit-specific electronic
equipment for potential re-use. By utilizing these services, the City ensures that the
transit vehicles are no longer identified as part of the current transit fleet, but still retain
some value for resale.

Procurement Information
IFB PTD21-015 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
There was one offer received. It is recommended that Variety Paint and Body, Inc. be
accepted as the lowest priced, responsive, and responsible offeror.

Contract Term
The contract term is five years, beginning on or about Feb. 1, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value shall not exceed $685,125, with an estimated annual
expenditure of $137,025.

Funding is available in the Public Transit Department’s Capital Improvement Program
budget in the Transportation 2050 fund.

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

Page 201



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Plastic Rear Loading Collection Bins - IFB 22-SW-032 - Requirements Contract
(Ordinance S-48226)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Rehrig Pacific Company to provide plastic rear loading bins for garbage and
recycle for multi-residential collection service. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this agreement over the life of the contract.
The total value of the agreement will not exceed $293,640.

Summary
This contract will provide two and three cubic yard plastic collection tipper bins on an
as needed basis for garbage and recycling for multi-residential collection service
accounts.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid (IFB) 22-SW-032 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department received one offer on Nov. 3, 2021.
The bid was evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and
conditions and responsibility to provide the requested goods. The bid received by
Rehrig Pacific Company is deemed to be fair and reasonable based on the market.

Contract Term
The initial two-year contract term will begin on or about Jan. 14, 2022. Provisions of
the contract include an option to extend the term of the contract for up to three
additional years, in one-year increments, which may be exercised by the City Manager,
or designee.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value, including all option years, will not exceed $293,640 over
the life of the contract.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.

Page 202



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
27th Avenue Materials Recovery Facility Equipment Replacement - RFP 22-SW-
014 - Requirements Contract (Ordinance S-48229)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Machinex Technologies Inc. to design and build specialized equipment for the
Materials Recovery Facility at the 27th Avenue Transfer Station to process recyclable
material. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this agreement over the life of the contract. The total value of this agreement will not
exceed $25 million.

Summary
In the 1980s, the Mayor and City Council led Phoenix to establish a comprehensive
solid waste management approach with a focus on reducing, reusing, and recycling. In
response, the Public Works Department commenced a commingled curbside recycling
program. On June 28, 1995, Council approved development of a Materials Recovery
Facility (MRF) at the 27th Avenue Transfer Station as part of the Phoenix Recycles
Program. The facility has been operational since Sept. 1, 1998. The City's second
MRF opened at the North Gateway Transfer Station in 2006. The objective of
Phoenix’s recycling program is to conserve landfill space, which is becoming a
challenge across the United States, and to create economic value by selling select
recyclable materials (commodities) to various markets. By seeing this material as a
resource, Phoenix has made the paradigm shift from a linear to a circular model of
waste management whereby materials are diverted from the landfill and redistributed
to create economic activity.

In December 2019, technology upgrades were completed at the North Gateway MRF
to increase capture of commodities, improve quality of product, lower operating
expense and increase revenue from commodity sales. Given the success of the North
Gateway MRF upgrades, a capital project to replace the 27th Avenue MRF was
included with the solid waste financial plan approved by Mayor and City Council on
Feb. 11, 2020.

The 27th Avenue MRF operations were suspended in January 2021 due to the
equipment reaching the end of useful life and no longer being effective at capturing
commodities that are prevalent in the current recycle stream. Since the suspension,


Page 203

recyclables from the 27th Avenue facility are hauled to the North Gateway MRF for
processing. The City hired a consultant to evaluate the 27th Avenue MRF and it
confirmed the long-term benefits of replacing the MRF versus continued hauling to
North Gateway. Replacing the 27th Avenue MRF equipment is critical to meet the
current volumes of inbound recycling and prevent North Gateway from aging more
rapidly at current volumes. It will also provide critical MRF redundancy for the City and
region, and provide capacity for population growth and new waste-to-resource
diversion programs.

The Request for Proposals (RFP) opened on Aug. 13, 2021 to replace the 27th
Avenue MRF with state-of-the-art equipment with improved processing speeds,
adaptability for new materials, reduced maintenance costs, and greater efficiency to
increase the capture rate and product quality.

To prepare the 27th Avenue MRF for equipment replacement, a contractor was
selected and deconstruction of the 27th Avenue MRF equipment occurred in October
2021. A second contractor has been selected to assess the building condition and
design improvements necessary to support the new equipment such as fire-life safety,
HVAC and electrical components.

Procurement Information
Request for Proposal (RFP) 22-SW-0014 was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10. Four proposals were received on Oct. 6, 2021. The
offers were evaluated by a committee that included representation from the Public
Works Department, industry experts, and technical advisors. The offers were
evaluated based on the following criteria requirements with 1,000 points possible:
· Price (325 points);
· Experience/Past Performance, Training and Start Up Plan, Implementation
Schedule, References (275 points);
· Design Layout and Maintenance Flexibility (200 points);
· Proposed Equipment and Impact on Labor (150 points); and
· Warranty Provided Above Minimum Requirement (50 points).

The evaluation committee determined that three firms were within competitive range
and were invited to participate in interviews. This resulted in the evaluation committee
reaching a consensus to enter into the Best and Final Offer (BAFO) process with two
firms. The final consensus is to recommend contract award to Machinex Technologies
Inc. and be accepted as the highest scored, responsive and responsible offer that is
most advantageous to the City.



Page 204

The finalists and their scores are as follows:

Machinex Technologies Inc.: 949 points
VAN DYK Recycling Solutions: 900 points

Contract Term
The term of this contract is for one year and will commence on Jan. 1, 2022 and will be
for one year or until the completion and acceptance of the entire project.

Financial Impact
The expenditure for this contract will not exceed $25 million.

Funding is available in the Public Works Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Solid Waste Rate Increase and Capital Plan on Feb. 11,
2020, by a vote of 7-2.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee received an
informational update on the Solid Waste Resources, Infrastructure and Financial Plan
on Feb. 3, 2021.

The City Council approved the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Strategic Plan that
included a funding allocation to partially offset the estimated equipment replacement
costs for the 27th Avenue MRF on June 8, 2021, by a vote of 7-2.

The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee received an informational
update on the 27th Avenue Material Recovery Facility Equipment Replacement on
Dec. 1, 2021.

Location
27th Avenue Transfer Station - 3060 S. 27th Ave.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department




Page 205



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Parking Meter Contract - Amendment (Ordinance S-48247)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 135354 with IPS Group Inc. (IPS), to extend the term by three months.
Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to
disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide a three-month extension to the existing
contract while negotiations occur for the replacement contract. The current contract
with IPS will expire on Jan. 27, 2022. No additional funds are needed for this short
contract extension.

The Street Transportation Department (Streets) has approximately 1,700 wireless
single-space parking meters capable of both coin and credit card transactions through
IPS. These smart meters operate on proprietary financial software that utilizes wireless
technology for two-way communications with the parking meters to accept and monitor
payments, monitor the status and use, provide remote diagnostics, and allow for
settings to be changed remotely. Streets has parking meters installed in the downtown
and midtown areas of Phoenix.

Streets also operates approximately 540 parking meters that remain in service prior to
the initiation of this contract with IPS. These parking meters are coin-only and do not
offer credit card transactions or other connected features. These coin-only meters are
not impacted by the IPS contract.

This existing meter technology was previously approved by the Information Technology
Department.

Procurement Information
A formal RFP procurement was conducted in 2021 in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10, and the evaluation panel recommended a vendor. Streets requires
additional time to conduct contract negotiations and have a vendor-signed contract
before presenting contract recommendation to the City Council. This extension will
provide staff the opportunity to complete contract negotiations which are beneficial to


Page 206

the vendor and the City. This extension will allow the City to continue the business
relationship without a lapse in service with IPS until the new contract for parking
meters is awarded and begins.

Contract Term
The term of this three-month extension will be from Jan. 28, 2022 through April 27,
2022.

Financial Impact
This is an expense and revenue generating contract. No additional funds are being
requested at this time.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Parking Meter Technology Contract 135354 (Ordinance S-39393) on Nov. 28, 2012;
· Parking Meter Technology Contract 135354 - Amendment (Ordinance S-43895) on
Sept. 6, 2017;
· Parking Meter Technology Contract 135354 - Amendment (Ordinance S-44122) and
on Dec. 13, 2017; and
· Parking Meter Technology Contract 135354 - Amendment (Ordinance S-46975) with
IPS on Oct. 7, 2020.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval for the Street Transportation Department to issue the formal RFP for
a successor contract for parking meter services on April 7, 2021, by a vote of 4-0. The

Location
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

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




Page 207



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Itron AMR Equipment Purchase, Software Support and Maintenance Agreement -
Amendment (Ordinance S-48218)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 147272 with Itron Inc. to provide additional funding to the agreement.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures for equipment and services included in this
amendment will not exceed $3,355,402.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide the Water Services Department with
Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) devices. The equipment includes mobile laptops,
handheld reading devices, encoder receiver transmitters, associated components and
software. The agreement also includes software support and hardware maintenance.

This amendment is necessary to allow the Water Meters Division the ability to replace
approximately 90 percent of the AMR devices currently in use due to WSD's migration
to Itron's upgraded meter reading software beginning January 2022. The upgrade will
render existing devices obsolete due to compatibility issues.

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

Contract Term
The agreement’s term will remain unchanged, ending on March 31, 2023.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for AMR Equipment and Maintenance Support Services Contract
was authorized for an expenditure not-to-exceed $7,958,000. This amendment will
increase the agreement’s cost by an additional $3,355,402, for a new total not-to-
exceed agreement value of $11,313,402.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.




Page 208

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Itron AMR Equipment Purchase, Software Support and
Maintenance Agreement 147272 (Ordinance S-44426) on April 4, 2018.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 209



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
CUES Equipment and Service Agreement - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
48221)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc., to provide CUES equipment and services for the
purpose of supplying video equipment and software for the Water Services
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The agreement will not exceed $570,300.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide CUES equipment and software to the
Water Services Department. The equipment and software will be used to conduct
preventative maintenance and inspections to sewer lines and storm drains, as well as
to help identify possible sources of illicit discharges.

AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: high definition
video equipment needed to respond to issues proactively and reactively, repairs and
replacement parts, software licensing and maintenance, and also operational training.

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

Procurement Information
An exception to the procurement process was determined as set forth in City of
Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10 to select the Contractor. A direct selection was
made because AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc. is the sole source distributor of CUES
brand equipment.

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2022, for a five-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for AZ Wastewater Industries, Inc. will not exceed $570,300 for
the five-year aggregate term.


Page 210


Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 211



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Thermal Granular Activated Carbon Regeneration Services - Amendment
(Ordinance S-48237)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 133070 with Calgon Carbon Corporation to provide additional time to the
agreement. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. No additional funding is requested as part of this amendment.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the term of the contract, and the funding
related to the pay ordinance, for an additional five years. In 2012, the Water Services
Department converted the Water Production facilities to Thermal Granular Activated
Carbon Regeneration to comply with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct (DBP) Rule. The Contractor's services include supply,
placement, removal and thermal reactivation of Thermal Granular Activated Carbon
Regeneration services.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the end date of the agreement's term from Jan. 17, 2022
to Jan. 17, 2027.

Financial Impact
The initial agreement for Thermal Granular Activated Carbon Regeneration Services
was executed for an expenditure not-to-exceed $50,000,000. The initial funding has
not been exhausted and no additional funding is required.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved: Thermal Granular Activated Carbon Regeneration
Services Agreement 133070 with Calgon Carbon Corporation (Ordinance S-38475) on
Jan. 18, 2012.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.



Page 212



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Agreement with Central Arizona Water Conservation District and Others to
Participate in the Colorado River 500+ Plan (Ordinance S-48254)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with the Central Arizona Water Conservation District to forgo delivery of a volume of
Phoenix's Colorado River entitlement in 2022, as system conservation, in return for
compensation. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds
related to this item for a creation of a water conservation fund within the Water
Services Department. The compensation will not exceed $4,163,765.97.

Summary
Conditions on the Colorado River system have not improved since the briefing at the
Colorado River, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Lower Basin states of
Arizona, California and Nevada have determined there is an unacceptable risk of the
water volumes in Lake Mead dropping below the elevation of 1,030 feet before 2026,
despite delivery reductions agreed to in the Lower Basin Drought Contingency Plan.
The Lower Basin States and the Bureau of Reclamation have determined that it will
require an additional 500,000 acre-feet (af) reduction in deliveries from Lake Mead
each year through 2026 to feasibly protect Lake Mead from catastrophic risk.

The Lower Basin States have developed a plan (called the 500+ Plan) to request
individual Colorado River users in the Lower Basin states to voluntarily contribute a
combined 500,000 acre-feet (af) each year from 2022 through 2026 to leave in Lake
Mead. Because the proposed contributions would be compensated at the rate of
$260.60/af, the plan also requires funding of $100 million each year. These reduced
deliveries are in addition to the reductions in deliveries Arizona agreed to in the
Drought Contingency Plan. The target volumes for the 500+ Plan in 2022 are 223,000
af from Arizona, 215,000 af from California and 62,000 af from Bureau of Reclamation.

Presumably, similar volumes would be sought in subsequent years through 2026. The
State of Arizona has already committed funding in the amount of $40 million in 2022,
and it is expected that the major water agencies with taxing authority in each state will
contribute the remainder of the funding. Those agencies are the Central Arizona Water
Conservation District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and the


Page 213

Southern Nevada Water Authority.

In 2022, Phoenix is scheduled to receive its total Colorado River allocation of 186,557
af. That includes 15,977 af of "mitigation water" under the Arizona Drought
Contingency Plan implementation agreement. This "mitigation water" is Non-Indian
Agricultural (NIA) Priority water that would have otherwise been unavailable to Phoenix
without the mitigation measures taken by Arizona to deliver water from reserves in
Lake Mead. Moreover, if Phoenix forgoes delivery of the NIA mitigation water, that
volume of water will remain in Lake Mead. Currently, if Phoenix receives the mitigation
water in 2022, the plan is to store it in Tucson for future shortage conditions. If Phoenix
chooses to forgo delivery of the NIA mitigation water, it will still be storing more than
26,000 af in Tucson.

Contract Term
This agreement will terminate on Dec. 31, 2026. While Phoenix is agreeing to forbear
delivery of water in 2022, the Agreement will include options for additional forbearance
through 2026. City Council approval will be required for each year Phoenix agrees to
forbear water in the 500+ Plan.

Financial Impact
Phoenix will receive compensation in the amount of $4,163,765.97 for a contribution of
15,977 af ($260.61/af). The funds will come from Central Arizona Water Conservation
District. The funds will be used to promote water conservation and implement water
conservation programs.

Location
Out of City

This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 214



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - The Urban Encanto - PLAT 210099 - North of Earll Drive and East of
19th Avenue

Plat: 210099
Project: 18-2388
Name of Plat: The Urban Encanto
Owner: Cryptomonde, LLC
Engineer: Dennis F. Keogh, RLS
Request: An 18 Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: November 30, 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 north of Earll Drive and east of 19th Avenue.
Council District: 4

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




Page 215



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - AHS-EVB - PLAT 210068 - South of Van Buren Street and West of 56th
Street

Plat: 210068
Project: 18-1600
Name of Plat: AHS-EVB
Owner: Arizona Humane Society
Engineer: James A Brucci
Request: A 1-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 16, 2021
Final Plat required 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
South of Van Buren Street and West of 56th Street.
Council District: 6

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




Page 216



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Serene at South Mountain - PLAT 210052 - 9th Street and Highline
Canal

Plat: 210052
Project: 19-3965
Name of Plat: Serene at South Mountain
Owner: South Mountain 25, LLC
Engineer: Bryan O'Connor, RLS
Request: A 25 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Oct. 25, 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 9th Street and the Highline Canal.
Council District: 8

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




Page 217



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Fremont Subdivision II - PLAT 210022 - North of Baseline Road and
East of 7th Street

Plat: 210022
Project: 05-1603
Name of Plat: Fremont Subdivision II
Owner(s): Ramiro Salguero Suarez & Maria Garcia Flores
Engineer(s): Richard E. Jones, RLS
Request: A 3 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 22, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public. This plat needs to record concurrently with Abandonment 210046. The
sequence of recording to be followed is that the resolution of abandonment is recorded
first, then the plat is recorded second.

Location
Generally located North of Baseline Road and East of 7th Street.
Council District: 8

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




Page 218



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Elevate on Central - PLAT 200609 - Northwest Corner of Central
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue

Plat: 200609
Project: 19-1352
Name of Plat: Elevate on Central
Owner: TSALM Services, LLC
Engineer: Robert A Johnston, RLS
Request: A 58-Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 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
Northwest corner of Central Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8

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




Page 219



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Tierra Montana Parcel 6 - PLAT 210017 - South of Elliot Road and
East of 59th Avenue

Plat: 210017
Project: 05-4228
Name of Plat: Tierra Montana Parcel 6
Owner(s): Taylor Woodrow Arizona, Inc and Tierra Montana Community Association
Engineer: Adrian M. Burchan, RLS
Request: A 111 Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 15, 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 needs to record concurrently with abandonments ABND 210034 and
ABND 210045. The sequence of recording is as follows: the resolutions of
abandonment are recorded first, and the final plat is record second.

Location
Generally located south of Elliot Road and east of 59th Ave.
Council District: 8

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




Page 220



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 210034 - Southwest Corner of 55th
Avenue and Elliot Road (Resolution 21982)

Abandonment: ABND 210034
Project: 05-4228
Applicant: Zach Hill; Kimley-Horn
Request: To abandon the 50-foot right-of-way, adjacent eight-foot public utility
easement, and adjacent one-foot vehicular non-access easement for portions of
Bullwhip Way and 55th Lane within Tierra Montana Parcel 6 subdivision.
Date of Decision/Hearing: July 29, 2021

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 210017 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
Southwest Corner of 55th Avenue and Elliot Road.
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
A consideration fee was collected as part of this abandonment in the amount of
$750.00.

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




Page 221



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way and Easements - ABND 210045 - Southwest
Corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road (Resolution 21983)

Abandonment: ABND 210045
Project: 05-4228
Applicant: Zach Hill; Kimley-Horn
Request: To abandon the right-of-way and adjacent public utility easement and
vehicular non-access easement for Bullwhip Way.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Oct. 29, 2021

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 210017 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
Southwest Corner of 55th Avenue and Carver Road
Council District: 8

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this right-of-way and easements
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 222



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Easements - ABND 210046 - East Fremont Road and South 10th
St. (Resolution 21984)

Abandonment: ABND 210046
Project: 05-1603
Applicant: Omar Cervantes, PE/CXL Engineering LLC
Request: The two-foot sidewalk easement and eight-foot public utility easement
adjacent to Fremont Road; the one-foot vehicular non-access easements adjacent to
lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5; the drainage easements dedicated over tracts A, B, C, and D;
and the emergency and service vehicle easement dedicated over tract D.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Nov. 17, 2021

Summary
The resolution of the abandonment and PLAT 210022 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
East Fremont Road and South 10th St.
Council District: 8

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 223



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1228 (Ordinance G-6940)

Request to authorize the City Manager to amend Section 601 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1228. This amendment
reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions previously
approved by City Council with Z-181-05, and the entitlements are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone a parcel approximately 495 feet from the southeast corner of the
intersection of 79th Avenue and McDowell Road.
Application No.: Z-181-05
Zoning: C1 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR
Owner: McDowell Road Apartments LLC
Acreage: 14.56

Location
Approximately 495 feet from the southeast corner of the intersection of 79th Avenue
and McDowell Road.
Address: 7777 W. McDowell Rd.
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager, Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 224
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1228.

____________


BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as

follows:

SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1228, which

accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 225
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney



By:_____________________________
_____________________________


REVIEWED BY:



____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:tml:LF21-3196:1-5-2022




Page 226
Page 227



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-54-21-1 -
Approximately 415 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 31st Avenue and
Cochise Drive (Ordinance G-6933)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-O (Commercial Office) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to allow
commercial uses within an existing building

Summary
Current Zoning: C-O
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 0.91 acres
Proposed Use: Commercial uses within existing building

Applicant: William F. Allison, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: CHCT Arizona, LLC
Representative: William F. Allison, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
17, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 13-
0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 415 feet west of the northwest corner of 31st Avenue and Cochise
Drive.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 3131 and 3201 W. Peoria Ave.

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

Page 228
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-54-21-1) FROM C-O (COMMERCIAL OFFICE) TO C-2
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.91-acre site located approximately 415 feet

west of northwest corner of 31st Avenue and Cochise Drive, in a portion of Section 26,

Township 3 North, and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from C-O (Commercial Office) to “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial

District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:



Page 229
1. The south building elevation shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or other overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

2. The developer shall replenish the existing landscape area along Cochise Drive
per the C-2 streetscape landscape standards for planting type, size and
quantity, with all trees being of a shade variety, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.

3. For any development that modifies the cumulative floor area by more than 10
percent, including demolition, from that depicted on the site plan date stamped
July 30, 2021, the public sidewalk and landscaping along Cochise Drive shall
be detached with a minimum 5-foot-wide landscape area located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian environment.

a. Large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed 25 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with a minimum 3-inch caliper.

b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.

c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.

4. The developer shall provide four bicycle parking spaces, shaded to 50 percent,
and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The developer shall dedicate a 1-foot Vehicular Non-Access Easement (VNAE)
along the south site boundary.

6. The developer shall provide enhanced pavement paint, markings or alternative
material for pedestrian pathways overlapping a drive aisle to connect from the
subject site to the commercial site to the north, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

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


Page 230
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.


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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.



________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Page 231
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 232
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-54-21-1

SECTION: 26 ; TOWNSHIP: 3 NORTH ; RANGE: 2 EAST

THAT PORTION OF TRACT “A”, METRO PLAZA, ACCORDING TO BOOK 194 OF
MAPS, PAGE 12, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT “A”;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT “A”’ A DISTANCE OF 173.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
76.20 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
5.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
124.80 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF
168.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF COCHISE
DRIVE;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 30 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, ALONG SAID
RIGHT OF WAY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 201.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL NO. 2:

AN EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGREE, EGRESS, AND
PARKING AS SET FORTH IN DOCKET 16069, PAGE 676, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, OVER THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
THE EAST 110 FEET OF THE SOUTH 172 FEET OF TRACT “B”, METRO PLAZA,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 194 OF MAPS, PAGE 12, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.

PARCEL NO. 3:
AN EASEMENT FOR VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS SET
FORTH IN DOCKET 16069, PAGE 688, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.




Page 233
Page 234



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-4-21-3 -
Southwest Corner of 20th Street and Bell Road (Ordinance G-6938)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial,
Special Permit) to allow auto sales and all underlying C-2 uses.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 4.83 acres
Proposed Use: Auto sales and all underlying C-2 uses.

Owner: 20th St & Bell Multi-Family, LLC
Applicant: David Doherty, CJ Auto, Inc.
Representative: William F. Allison, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Nov.
1, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Southwest corner of 20th Street and Bell Road.
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 1925 and 1975 E. Bell Road.

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



Page 235
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-SP-4-21-3) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.83-acre site located on the southwest

corner of 20th Street and Bell Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 3 North, Range

3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “C-2”

(Intermediate Commercial District) to “C-2 SP” (Intermediate Commercial District,

Special Permit) to auto sales and all underlying C-2 uses.

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 236
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The southern landscape setback shall be planted with 2-inch caliper, large
canopy shade trees planted 20-feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. All public sidewalks shall be detached with a landscape strip located between
the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section (Cross
Section A on Bell Road) of the Street Classification Map and planted to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on alternative design solutions with a
pedestrian environment.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees placed a
minimum of 20 feet on center or equivalent groupings to provide a
minimum of 75 percent shade on adjacent sidewalks.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained at a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.

3. All uncovered surface parking areas used by customers and employees must
be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees. Landscaping must be
dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 15 percent shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

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

a. The developer shall provide 4 bicycle parking spaces on site or on the
site to the west near building entrances. The bicycle parking spaces
shall be shaded to 50 percent, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

b. Upon construction of Phase 2, a bicycle repair station (“fix it station”)
shall be provided on the site in close proximity to 20th Street. The station
shall include but not limited to: standard repair tools affixed to the
station; a tire gauge and pump; and a bicycle repair stand which allows
pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 237
5. The developer shall dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way for the south half of Bell
Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall dedicate a 15-foot-wide sidewalk easement for the south
half of Bell Road, as approved by the Planning and Development Departments.

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

8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances, bus stop pads, and public sidewalks, using the most direct
route for pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Any cross-access agreements shall include a pedestrian pathway,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

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

13. No deliveries shall take place off of 20th Street and no deliveries shall take
place on the site after 10:00 p.m.


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

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




Page 238
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




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




Page 239
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-SP-4-21-3

The Land referred to herein below is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

Section: 3
Township: 3 North
Range: 3 East

Lot 1, Paradise Valley Auto Park, according to Book 311 of Maps, page 28, records of
Maricopa County, Arizona.




Page 240
Page 241



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-32-21-3 -
Southeast Corner of 23rd Street and Cave Creek Road (Ordinance G-6939)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) and R 1-14 (One-Family Residence District) to
R-2 Hillside DNS/WVR (Multifamily Residence District, Hillside Density Waiver) for a
multifamily residential development with a hillside density waiver.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 and R1-14
Proposed Zoning: R-2 Hillside DNS/WVR
Acreage: 4.25 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential development with a hillside density waiver

Owner: The View Reception Villa, LLC
Applicant: The View Reception Villa, LLC
Representative: Law Office of David Cisiewski, PLLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Nov.
1, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Southeast corner of 23rd Street and Cave Creek Road.
Council District: 3
Parcel Address: 14115 N. Cave Creek Road.

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



Page 242
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-32-21-3) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) AND R1-14 (ONE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
TO R-2 HILLSIDE DNS/WVR (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT, HILLSIDE DENSITY WAIVER).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.25-acre site located on the southeast

corner of 23rd Street and Cave Creek Road in a portion of Section 10, Township 3

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

from “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial District) and “R1-14” (One-family Residence

District) to “R-2 Hillside DNS/WVR” (Multifamily Residence District, Hillside Density

Waiver).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.




Page 243
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 22 dwelling units.

2. The required landscape setback along Cave Creek Road and shall be planted
with minimum 50 percent 2-inch caliper, 25 percent 3-inch caliper and 25
percent 4-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, to provide a
minimum of 50 percent shade at maturity along the sidewalk. Additionally, five
5-gallon shrubs shall be provided per tree, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

3. Drought tolerant vegetation shall be utilized throughout the site, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

4. Building elevations shall include exterior detailing on all sides of the elevations,
such as but not limited to: recesses and/or pop-outs; accent materials, such as
stone or masonry; large picture windows, casement windows, and/or clerestory
windows; and oversized overhangs, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5. Building and wall colors shall be muted and blend with rather than contrast
strongly with the surrounding desert environment, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

6. Any perimeter walls along the west side of the site shall be open view fencing,
or a combination of maximum 3 feet of solid wall topped by open view fencing,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. Solid walls shall be prohibited along the perimeters of the site within 25 feet of
a property line adjacent to the Phoenix Shadow Mountain Preserve, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. A central amenity open space area shall be provided within close proximity to
the primary vehicular entrance into the development, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

9. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure located within the
central amenity open space area as described below and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

a. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided via inverted
U-bicycle racks, artistic style bicycle racks, or “Outdoor/Covered


Page 244
Facilities”. All bicycle racks shall adhere to Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

b. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained. The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in
an area of high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering
areas, where applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair
tools affixed to the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of
the station or the ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals
and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

10. Pedestrian paths within the site and connecting to the public sidewalk shall be
shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using architectural shade and/or shade
trees at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. The primary vehicular entrance to the development shall include the following
elements, as approved by the Planning and Development Department:

a. 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.

b. Traffic calming measures shall be provided to slow vehicles departing
the development, prior to crossing the public sidewalk.

c. Pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect the interior of the
development to the public sidewalks along both sides of the vehicular
driveway.

d. The pedestrian pathways shall be detached from the vehicular driveway
and separated by minimum 5-foot wide landscape planters. The planters
shall include a mix of ornamental trees (no less than 2-inch caliper),
shrubs (no less than five 5-gallon shrubs per tree), and other vegetative
groundcover providing a minimum of 75 percent live cover.

e. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement
treatments that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle
surfaces, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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




Page 245
13. The developer shall dedicate a 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement along the east
side of Cave Creek Road, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

14. The use of blasting, both on-site and off-site, for grading and construction shall
be subject to the City of Phoenix Implosion/Demolition Policy (TRT 00590) and
the Implosion/Demolition Checklist (TRT 00591) with specific regard to those
sections related to blasting, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

15. The use of blasting during on-site or off-site construction shall be subject to the
review and approval by the City of Phoenix Water Services Department, and
their regulatory agency Arizona Department of Water Resource. The developer
shall provide evidence of this review and approval to the Planning and
Development Department prior to the issuance of any blasting approvals on the
site.

16. 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.

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


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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January

2022.


________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:



Page 246
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________




REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



REVIEWED BY:

____________________________City Manager

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




Page 247
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-32-21-3

A PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 10, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT
RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA MORE
PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE
SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER,
191.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAVE
CREEK ROAD MARKING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 21 SECONDS EAST,
ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, 422.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 12 MINUTES 39 SECONDS EAST, 450.00 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 47 MINUTES 21 SECONDS WEST, 255.46 FEET TO
A POINT ON A CURVE ON SAID EASTERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF CAVE
CREEK ROAD, THE CENTER OF WHICH BEARS SOUTH 59 DEGREES 32
MINUTES 06 SECONDS EAST, 1218.24 FEET;

THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND ALONG THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE, THOUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 14 DEGREES 44
MINUTES 07 SECONDS FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 313.30 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 15 DEGREES 43 MINUTES 47 SECONDS WEST, 168.29 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

EXCEPT THEREFROM ANY PORTION LYING IN THE SHADOW MOUNTAIN,
PHOENIX MOUNTAINS PRESERVE




Page 248
Page 249



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-53-21-4 -
Approximately 300 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of I-17 and Campbell
Avenue (Ordinance G-6932)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) to R-5 (Multifamily Residence District) and A-1
(Light Industrial District) to allow multifamily residential and a billboard.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-5
Proposed Zoning: R-5 (0.28 acres) and A-1 (0.03 acres)
Acreage: 0.31 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and a billboard

Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: Rene Sanchez Meza
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 16,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-1.

Location
Approximately 300 feet south of the southwest corner of I-17 and Campbell Avenue.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 4410 N. Black Canyon Highway.

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



Page 250
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-53-21-4) FROM R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
TO R-5 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT) AND A-1 (LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT).
____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.31 acre site located approximately 300 feet

south of the southwest corner of I-17 and Campbell Avenue, in a portion of Section 24,

Township 2 North, and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from “R-5” (Multifamily Residence District) to 0.28 acres “R-5”

(Multifamily Residence District) and 0.03 acres of “A-1” (Light Industrial District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:


Page 251
1. The maximum building height shall not exceed 30 feet. If the following
conditions are met, the maximum height shall be 40 feet. The conditions must
be met prior to or in conjunction with the Final Site Plan Review.

a. A minimum of 75 percent of the housing units are dedicated for long-
term affordability, as approved by the Phoenix Housing Department.

b. The applicant shall submit a copy of the draft Declaration of Affirmative
Land Use and Restrictive Covenants agreement (LURA), for review and
approval by the Phoenix Housing Department.

c. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Proforma, for review and
approval by the Phoenix Housing Department.

2. One framing inspection for the primary building on the R-5 portion of the site
shall be approved prior to the issuance of a permit for any off-premise signage.

3. The indoor noise levels of residential units shall not exceed a decibel day
night-level (DNL) of 45 decibels and that along with the building plans
submitted for Phoenix Building Construction Code compliance review to the
Planning and Development Department there shall be a sealed and signed
analysis by an engineer licensed in Arizona with a proficiency in residential
sound mitigation or noise control. The engineer shall note in the analysis that
the building design is capable of achieving the required Noise Level Reduction.

4. The C-2 Streetscape Landscape Standards for planting type, size and quantity
shall be used along the Black Canyon Highway Frontage Road with all trees
being of a shade variety, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. The required landscape setback areas along the north, west, and south site
boundaries shall be planted with shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings with 75 percent of the trees being a minimum 3-inch
caliper, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The developer shall construct right-of-way improvements along the frontage
road for the limits of the subject site including sidewalks, as determined and
approved by ADOT.

7. The developer shall provide a minimum of 3 inverted-U style bicycle racks
located near building entrances and shaded to a minimum 50 percent, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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


Page 252
9. Any new driveways and changes to existing driveways shall require the review
and approval of ADOT. Documentation of ADOT’s approval of all modifications
shall be provided prior to Preliminary Site Plan approval.

10. A Red Border Letter shall be processed for this development, as determined by
the Planning and Development Department.

11. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

13. 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.

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


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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.



________________________________
MAYOR




Page 253
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


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




Page 254
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-53-21-4

R-5 ZONE CHANGE

The land referred to herein below that is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, LYING BETWEEN
THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 389.55 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE PHOENIX-ROCK SPRING HIGHWAY.

EXCEPT THE NORTH 309.00 FEET; AND

EXCEPT THE SOUTH 234.88 FEET; AND

EXCEPT THE SOUTHERLY 64.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 15.00 FEET.

Also known as a portion of APN 154-18-018

A-1 ZONE CHANGE


THE SOUTHERLY 64.00 FEET OF THE EASTERLY 15.00 FEET OF:
The land referred to herein below that is situated in the County of Maricopa, State of
Arizona, and is described as follows:

THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTE OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, LYING BETWEEN
THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 389.55 FEET OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE WEST
RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE PHOENIX-ROCK SPRING HIGHWAY.

EXCEPT THE NORTH 309.00 FEET; AND

EXCEPT THE SOUTH 234.88 FEET.

Also known as APN 154-18-018 and 4410 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, AZ.




Page 255
Page 256



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-49-21-7 -
Approximately 100 feet West of the Northwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-6934)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District) to C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) to
allow commercial uses. This is a companion case to Z-SP-5-21-7 and should be heard
first, followed by Z-SP-5-21-7.

Summary
Current Zoning: RE-35
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 11.83 acres
Proposed Use: Commercial uses

Applicant: Michelle Bach, EAPC Architects Engineers
Owner: Arizona Department of Transportation
Representative: Michelle Bach, EAPC Architects Engineers

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: This case was scheduled to be heard at the Estrella Village Planning
Committee meeting on Oct. 19, 2021 and was continued to the Nov. 16, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 16, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 5-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Estrella Village Planning Committee recommendation
with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 2350 S. 59th Ave.


Page 257


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




Page 258
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-49-21-7) FROM RE-35 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 11.83-acre site located approximately 100

feet west of the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in a portion

of Section 18, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in

Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “RE-35” (Single-Family Residence District) to “C-2”

(Intermediate Commercial District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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




Page 259
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 with a common architectural theme 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 to provide a
decorative and aesthetic treatment.

b. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation
in window size and location, and/or overhang canopies.

c. A minimum of two building materials listed in the Estrella Village Core
Plan shall be utilized in all building elevations.

2. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as noted herein, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

3. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall incorporate enhanced
landscaping on both sides planted with a variety of at least three plant materials.
Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 125-square feet, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

4. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. Where perimeter walls are adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway drainage channel,
these shall be limited to open view wrought iron fencing or similar material, or a
combination of 4-feet solid masonry topped by wrought iron open view fencing
or similar material, unless required otherwise by the Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper size large canopy 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.

7. The following pedestrian shade standards shall be met as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:




Page 260
a. Pedestrian walkways connecting the commercial buildings to adjacent
public sidewalks shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using
large canopy drought tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or
architectural shade.

b. The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road shall be shaded to a minimum
of 50 percent.

8. A system of pedestrian thoroughfares shall be provided as described below
and as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Connections to/between via the most direct route:

(1) All building entrances.

(2) Adjacent public sidewalks.

(3) The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road.

b. 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 with parking and drive
aisle surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.

9. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure, 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 of
each enclosed commercial building and installed per the requirements
of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere
to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.

b. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained within close proximity to Lower Buckeye Road or the C
Store building as depicted in the site plan date stamped July 12, 2021.
The bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of
high visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed
to the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or
the ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels
to spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

10. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
along the north side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a minimum 10-foot
wide-multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in accordance with the MAG


Page 261
supplemental detail indicated in Section 429 and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where conflicts or restrictions exist, the
developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an alternate design
through the technical appeal process.

11. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad
along westbound Lower Buckeye Road west of 59th Avenue. The bus stop pad
shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the
intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.

12. All sidewalks along Lower Buckeye Road shall be detached with a landscape
strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent
Cross Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
and/or the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise
provided herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

13. All sidewalks along 59th Avenue shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscape area located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and/or the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise
provided herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program requirements for arterial streets.




Page 262
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

14. All proposed driveways along Lower Buckeye Road shall require the approval
of the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Planning and
Development Department.

15. 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.

16. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

17. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

18. 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.

19. 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.




Page 263
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.


________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________




REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


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




Page 264
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-49-21-7


That portion of the East half of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 1 North,
Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, lying between
the existing westerly right of way line of 59th Avenue and the following described LINE:


COMMENCING at a 2003 3 inch Maricopa County brass cap in handhole “LS 3610”
marking the Southeast corner of said Section 18, being South 00’04’18” East 2637.50
feet from a 2 inch 2005 Maricopa County aluminum cap in handhole “LS 3610” marking
the East quarter corner of said Section 18, thence along the East line of said Section
18, North 00’04’18” West 33.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence South 89’55’42” West 33.00 feet to the juncture of the existing northerly right of
way line of Lower Buckeye Road with the existing westerly right of way line of 59 th
Avenue. Thence along said existing northerly right of way line of Lower Buckeye Road
North 88’40’28” West 100.03 feet;
thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line North 00’04’18” West
33.51 feet; thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line North
88’40’28” West 103.90 feet; thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way
line North 76’00’25” West 118.56 feet;
thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line North 88’40’28” West
169.49 feet to the existing easterly right of way line of State Route 202L (SOUTH
MOUNTAIN FREEWAY);
thence along said existing easterly right of way line of State Route 202L North 16’00’43”
East 399.68 feet; thence continuing along said existing easterly right of way line North
17’01’23” East 500.10 feet; thence continuing along said exiting easterly right of way
line North 17’16’47” East 399.69 feet; thence continuing along said existing easterly
right of way line North 17’44’31” East 292.19 feet to the existing westerly right of way
line of said 59th Avenue; thence North 89’55’42” East 55.00 feet to the POINT OF
ENDING on said East line of Section 18, being South 00’04’18” East 1010.54 feet from
said East quarter corner of Section 18.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 83.00 feet of the East 83.00 feet of the
Southeast quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 18;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 83.00 feet of the East 83.00 feet of the
Southeast quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 18 described as follows:
COMMENCING at a 2005 3 inch Maricopa County brass cap in handhold stamped “LS
31610” marking the Southeast corner of said Section 18, from which a 3 inch City of
Phoenix brass cap in handhold marking the South quarter corner of said Section 18
bears North 88’40’28” West 2693.67 feet;
thence along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 18, North 88’40’28”
West 83.02 feet; thence North 00’04’18” West 33.01 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING
on the North line of the South 33 feet of the Southeast quarter of said Section 18;
thence along said North line of the South 33 feet North 88’40’28” West 50.01 feet;


Page 265
thence North 00’04’18” West 150.04 feet; thence South 88’40’28” East 100.03 feet;
thence South 00’04’18” East 100.03 feet to the North line of the South 83 feet of
Southeast quarter; thence along said North line of the South 83 feet, North 88’40’28”
West 50.01 feet to the West line of the East 83 feet of said Southeast quarter;
thence along said West line, South 00’04’18” East 50.01 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. AND EXCEPT all minerals, coal, carbons, hydrocarbons, oil, gas,
chemical elements and compounds, whether in solid, liquid or gaseous form, and all
steam and other forms of thermal energy on, in or under said land as reserved in deed
recorded in 2001-1105056, Official Records.




Page 266
Page 267



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-SP-5-21-7 -
Approximately 100 feet West of the Northwest Corner of 59th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road (Ordinance G-6935)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
from RE-35 (Single-Family Residence District), pending C-2 (Intermediate Commercial
District) to C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial District, Special Permit) to allow a self-
service storage warehouse and underlying commercial uses. This is a companion case
to Z-49-21-7 and should be heard after Z-49-21-7.

Summary
Current Zoning: RE-35 (Pending C-2)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 SP
Acreage: 11.83 acres
Proposed Use: Self-service storage warehouse and underlying commercial uses

Applicant: Michelle Bach, EAPC Architects Engineers
Owner: Arizona Department of Transportation
Representative: Michelle Bach, EAPC Architects Engineers

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: This case was scheduled to be heard at the Estrella Village Planning
Committee meeting on Oct. 19, 2021 and was continued to the Nov. 16, 2021, by a
vote of 7-0.
The Estrella Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 16, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a modification, by a vote of
5-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Estrella Village Planning Committee recommendation
with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 100 feet west of the northwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower
Buckeye Road.


Page 268

Council District: 7
Parcel Address: 2350 S. 59th Ave.

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




Page 269
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-SP-5-21-7) FROM RE-35 (PENDING C-2)
(SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, PENDING
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL) TO C-2 SP (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 11.83-acre site located approximately

100 feet west of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road in a

portion of Section 18, Township 1 North, Range 2 East, as described more

specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “RE-35 (Pending C-2)” (Single-

Family Residence District, Pending Intermediate Commercial) to “C-2 SP”

(Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit) to allow a self-service storage warehouse

and underlying commercial uses.

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.



Page 270
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

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

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

the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The self-service storage warehouse portion of the development shall be in
general conformance with the building elevations date stamped November 16,
2021, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Other building elevations shall be developed
with a common architectural theme 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 to provide a
decorative and aesthetic treatment.

b. All building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation
in window size and location, and/or overhang canopies.

c. A minimum of two building materials listed in the Estrella Village Core
Plan shall be utilized in all building elevations.

2. The development shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping Program landscape palette and landscaping standards along
arterial streets in the Estrella Village, except as noted herein, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

3. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall incorporate enhanced
landscaping on both sides planted with a variety of at least three plant
materials. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 125-square feet, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. Project entry drives along Lower Buckeye Road shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or similar alternative material,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. Where perimeter walls are adjacent to the Loop 202 freeway drainage channel,
these shall be limited to open view wrought iron fencing or similar material, or a
combination of 4-feet solid masonry topped by wrought iron open view fencing
or similar material, unless required otherwise by the Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall


Page 271
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

7. The following pedestrian shade standards shall be met as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Pedestrian walkways connecting the commercial buildings to adjacent
public sidewalks shall be shaded to a minimum of 75 percent using large
canopy drought tolerant shade trees at maturity and/or architectural
shade.

b. The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road shall be shaded to a minimum
of 50 percent.

8. A system of pedestrian thoroughfares shall be provided as described below and
as approved or modified by the Planning and Development Department:

a. Connections to/between via the most direct route:

(1) All building entrances.

(2) Adjacent public sidewalks.

(3) The bus stop along Lower Buckeye Road.

b. 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 with parking and drive aisle
surfaces. Vehicular crossings shall be kept to a minimum.

9. The development shall incorporate bicycle infrastructure, 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 of
each enclosed commercial building and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the
Bicycle Master Plan.

b. One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided and
maintained within close proximity to Lower Buckeye Road or the C Store
building as depicted in the site plan date stamped July 12, 2021. The
bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high
visibility and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where
applicable. The repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed
to the station; a tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or


Page 272
the ground; and a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to
spin freely while making adjustments to the bike.

10. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
along the north side of Lower Buckeye Road and construct a minimum 10-foot
wide multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement, in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail indicated in Section 429 and as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Where conflicts or restrictions exist, the
developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an alternate design
through the technical appeal process.

11. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad along
westbound Lower Buckeye Road west of 59th Avenue. The bus stop pad shall
be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a
minimum depth of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the
intersection according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1258.

12. All sidewalks along Lower Buckeye Road shall be detached with a landscape
strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent
Cross Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following
standards, as approved by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
and/or the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.

c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise provided
herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street Landscaping
Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

13. All sidewalks along 59th Avenue shall be a minimum of 5 feet in width and
detached with a minimum 10-foot wide landscape area located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and planted to the following standards, as approved
by the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and/or the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75 percent shade.

b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum height of 24
inches and achieve 75 percent live coverage.


Page 273
c. The landscape palette and planting standards, unless otherwise provided
herein, shall conform with the Estrella Village Arterial Street Landscaping
Program requirements for arterial streets.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

14. All proposed driveways along Lower Buckeye Road shall require the approval of
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) and the Planning and
Development Department.

15. 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.

16. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

17. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archeologist, in consultation with a qualified archeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall
conduct Phase II archeological data recovery excavations.

18. 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.

19. 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.



Page 274
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.


________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________




REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager


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




Page 275
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-SP-5-21-7


That portion of the East half of the Southeast quarter of Section 18, Township 1
North, Range 2 East, Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, lying
between the existing westerly right of way line of 59th Avenue and the following
described LINE:


COMMENCING at a 2003 3 inch Maricopa County brass cap in handhole “LS 3610”
marking the Southeast corner of said Section 18, being South 00’04’18” East
2637.50 feet from a 2 inch 2005 Maricopa County aluminum cap in handhole “LS
3610” marking the East quarter corner of said Section 18, thence along the East line
of said Section 18, North 00’04’18” West 33.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence South 89’55’42” West 33.00 feet to the juncture of the existing northerly right
of way line of Lower Buckeye Road with the existing westerly right of way line of 59th
Avenue. Thence along said existing northerly right of way line of Lower Buckeye
Road North 88’40’28” West 100.03 feet;
thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line North 00’04’18”
West 33.51 feet; thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line
North 88’40’28” West 103.90 feet; thence continuing along said existing northerly
right of way line North 76’00’25” West 118.56 feet;
thence continuing along said existing northerly right of way line North 88’40’28”
West 169.49 feet to the existing easterly right of way line of State Route 202L
(SOUTH MOUNTAIN FREEWAY);
thence along said existing easterly right of way line of State Route 202L North
16’00’43” East 399.68 feet; thence continuing along said existing easterly right of
way line North 17’01’23” East 500.10 feet; thence continuing along said exiting
easterly right of way line North 17’16’47” East 399.69 feet; thence continuing along
said existing easterly right of way line North 17’44’31” East 292.19 feet to the
existing westerly right of way line of said 59th Avenue; thence North 89’55’42” East
55.00 feet to the POINT OF ENDING on said East line of Section 18, being South
00’04’18” East 1010.54 feet from said East quarter corner of Section 18.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 83.00 feet of the East 83.00 feet of the
Southeast quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 18;
ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM the South 83.00 feet of the East 83.00 feet of the
Southeast quarter (SE1/4) of said Section 18 described as follows:
COMMENCING at a 2005 3 inch Maricopa County brass cap in handhold stamped
“LS 31610” marking the Southeast corner of said Section 18, from which a 3 inch
Section 18 bears North 88’40’28” West 2693.67 feet;
thence along the South line of the Southeast quarter of said Section 18, North
88’40’28” West 83.02 feet; thence North 00’04’18” West 33.01 feet to the POINT OF



Page 276
BEGINNING on the North line of the South 33 feet of the Southeast quarter of said
Section 18;
thence along said North line of the South 33 feet North 88’40’28” West 50.01 feet;
thence North 00’04’18” West 150.04 feet; thence South 88’40’28” East 100.03 feet;
thence South 00’04’18” East 100.03 feet to the North line of the South 83 feet of
Southeast quarter; thence along said North line of the South 83 feet, North 88’40’28”
West 50.01 feet to the West line of the East 83 feet of said Southeast quarter;
thence along said West line, South 00’04’18” East 50.01 feet to the POINT OF
BEGINNING. AND EXCEPT all minerals, coal, carbons, hydrocarbons, oil, gas,
chemical elements and compounds, whether in solid, liquid or gaseous form, and all
steam and other forms of thermal energy on, in or under said land as reserved in
deed recorded in 2001-1105056, Official Records.




Page 277
Page 278



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-45-21-8 -
Approximately 1,050 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 36th Street and
Southern Avenue (Ordinance G-6936)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to CP/GCP (Commerce Park/General
Commerce Park) to allow warehousing and office.

Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: CP/GCP
Acreage: 3.99 acres
Proposed Use: Warehousing and office

Owner: CTC Partnership, LLC
Applicant: David Richert
Representative: David Richert

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 1,050 feet north of the northeast corner of 36th Street and Southern
Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: 5815 and 5837 S. 36th St.

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


Page 279
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-45-21-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO CP/GCP (COMMERCE PARK/GENERAL
COMMERCE PARK).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 3.99-acre site located approximately 1,050

feet north of the northeast corner of 36th Street and Southern Avenue in a portion of

Section 25, Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit

“A”, is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “CP/GCP”

(Commerce Park/General Commerce Park 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 280
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
building elevations date stamped August 9, 2021, except as modified by the
following, and approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. The required landscape setback along 36th Street shall be planted with
minimum 50 percent 2-inch caliper and 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy
drought-tolerant 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. Trees shall be oriented to provide the maximum
shade possible to the sidewalk along 36th Street, except where utility conflicts
arise, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. The required landscape setback along the south property line shall be planted
with minimum 40 percent 1-inch caliper and 60 percent 2-inch caliper large
canopy drought-tolerant trees, planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

4. 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.

5. One outdoor employee resting area of no less than 300 square feet or two 150-
square foot areas shall be provided on the site. The resting area shall include a
bench, constructed of quality and durable materials, and located in a shaded
area, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. A clearly defined and accessible pedestrian connection from the primary
building entrance closest to 36th Street to the nearest public sidewalk shall be
provided via the most direct route. This pathway shall be constructed of an
alternate material, other than that used to pave the parking surfaces and drive
aisles, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The developer shall provide traffic calming measures at all vehicular points of
ingress and/or egress to slow vehicles departing the development and crossing
the public sidewalks, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. A minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted
U and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site 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.


Page 281
9. The developer shall construct a sidewalk along the east side of 36th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. The developer shall dedicate 5 feet of right-of-way and construct the east half
of 36th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

12. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
along the east side of 36th Street and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-
use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental
detail, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. The
developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for
this requirement through the technical appeal process.

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

14. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

15. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from Phase
I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

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

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




Page 282
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.


________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________




REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager


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




Page 283
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-45-21-8

WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 25, TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:


PARCEL NO. 1:
THE NORTH 60 FEET OF THE SOUTH 150 FEET OF THE WEST 100
FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF TRACT “F”, A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 48,
BARTLETTHEARD LANDS, ACCORDING TO BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 34,
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.


PARCEL NO. 2:
THE NORTH HALF OF TRACT “F”, A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 48,
BAERTLETT-HEARD LANDS, ACCORDING TO BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 34,
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
EXCEPT THE SOUTH 90 FEET THEREOF: AND
EXCEPT THE NORTH 60 FEET OF THE SOUTH 150 FEET OF THE WEST 100 FEET
OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID TRACT “F”.


PROPOSED PARCEL DESCRIPTION:
THE NORTH 30.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 90.00 FEET OF THE NORTH HALF OF
TRACT "F", A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 48-60-61 BARTLETT-HEARD LANDS,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 14 OF MAPS, PAGE 34, RECORDS OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA.




Page 284
Page 285



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-62-21-8 -
Southeast and Southwest Corners of 25th Street and Van Buren Street
(Ordinance G-6937)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-4 TOD-2 (Multifamily Residence District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay
District Two), C-3 (General Commercial District), and C-3 TOD-2 (General Commercial
District, Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two) to WU Code T5:3 GW
(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:3 District, Transit Gateway Character Area) to allow
multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-4 TOD-2 (0.35 acres), C-3 (1.34 acres) and C-3 TOD-2 (0.39 acres)
Proposed Zoning: WU Code T5:3 GW
Acreage: 2.08
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential

Owner: MO25, LLC
Applicant: MO25, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Central City Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 8,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 13-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Central City Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Southeast and southwest corners of 25th Street and Van Buren Street.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 2445 and 2501 E. Van Buren St., and 2446 E. Monroe St.




Page 286

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 287
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-62-21-8) FROM R-4 TOD-2 (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO), C-3 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) AND C-3 TOD-2 (GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, INTERIM TRANSIT-ORIENTED
ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT TWO) TO
WU CODE T5:3 GW (WALKABLE URBAN CODE, TRANSECT
5:3 DISTRICT, TRANSIT GATEWAY CHARACTER AREA).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.08-acre site located at the southeast

and southwest corners of 25th Street and Van Buren Street in a portion of Section 11,

Township 1 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from 0.35 acres of “R-4 TOD-2” (Multifamily Residence District,

Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two), 1.34 acres of “C-3” (General

Commercial District), and 0.39 acres of “C-3 TOD-2” (General Commercial District,

Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay District Two) to “WU Code T5:3 GW”

(Walkable Urban Code, Transect 5:3 District, Transit Gateway Character Area).



Page 288
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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

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

the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. Upon site plan approval and permit issuance for any new building(s) or
structure(s) on the site, the new building or structure and adjacent landscaping
shall be developed in compliance with the Walkable Urban Code (Chapter 13
of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance), as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. Upon any subsequent phase or phases of development that increase the
cumulative floor area by more than 15 percent from that depicted on the site
plan date stamped September 7, 2021, a publicly-accessible pedestrian
pathway with a minimum width of 10 feet shall connect the sidewalk along Van
Buren Street to Monroe Street. The pedestrian access shall be constructed per
the requirements of Section 1304.H of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

3. 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, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Ground floor blank walls visible from
the public sidewalk along the north and south elevations shall not exceed 20
linear feet without being interrupted by a window, or variation in building
treatment or design, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

4. The main project entry drive along Van Buren Street from the entry apron to
the entry gate shall be constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored
concrete, or similar alternative material, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5. Traffic calming devices shall be installed along the driveways so that vehicles
exercise caution prior to crossing the public sidewalk and when entering and
exiting the site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The existing streetscape landscape area between the curb and sidewalk along
Van Buren Street shall be replenished with vegetation, as required by Section


Page 289
1309.B of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

7. In addition to the required bicycle parking per Section 1307.H.6 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, the developer shall install a minimum of three inverted-U
bicycle racks (six spaces) for guests, placed near entrances to the building and
installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

10. 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.

11. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. 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.

13. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.

14. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.

15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-



Page 290
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.


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

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_____________________________


Page 291
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



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




Page 292
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-62-21-8:

Within a portion of Section 11, Township 1 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly
described as follows:

PARCEL NO. 1:

Lot 1, and the East 10 feet of Lot 3, Block 2 of HIALEAH, a subdivision recorded in
Book 20 of Maps, Page 46, records of Maricopa County, Arizona;

EXCEPT the North 7 feet of said Lots as condemned for the use and purpose of a
State Highway by Decree recorded July 3, 1934 in Book 283 of Deeds, Page 487.

PARCEL NO. 2:

That portion of the North half of the abandoned alley lying between the Southerly
prolongation of the West line of the East 10 feet of Lot 3, Block 2, or HIALEAH and
the Southerly prolongation of the East line of Lot 1, Block 2, of HIALEAH, according
to the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona,
in Book 20 of Maps, Page 46, as set forth in Resolution recorded July 19, 1984 as
84-314882 of Official Records.

PARCEL NO. 3:

Lot 2, Block 2, of HIALEAH, a subdivision recorded in Book 20 of Maps, Page 46,
records of Maricopa County, Arizona.

PARCEL NO. 4:

That portion of the South half of the abandoned alley lying between the Northerly
prolongation of the East and West lines of Lot 2, Block 2 of HIALEAH, according to
the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona in
Book 20 of Maps, Page 46, as set forth in Resolution recorded July 19, 1984 as 84-
314882 of Official Records.

Legal Description per Deed 2019-0971287

That part of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 11, 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 East line of Lot 2, Block 2, Hialeah, according to Book 20
of Maps Page 46, records of Maricopa County, Arizona, which point is 7 feet South of
the Northeast corner of said Lot 1, Block 2;



Page 293
Thence Easterly, along the Southerly line of Van Buren Street, as widened, which
Southerly line of Van Buren Street is 7 feet South of, and parallel to, the Easterly
prolongation of North line of said Lot 1, Block 2, Hialeah, 60 feet to the True Point of
Beginning;

Thence Southerly, along a line which is parallel to and 60 feet East of, the East line of
Lots 1 and 2, Block 2 of Hialeah, 303 feet to a point on the Easterly prolongation of
the South line of said Lot 2, Block 2, Hialeah, which is 60 feet East of the Southeast
corner of said Lot 2, Block 2, Hialeah;

Thence Easterly along the Easterly prolongation of the South line of said Lot 2, Block
2, Hialeah, 125 feet;

Thence North, along a line which is parallel to and 185 feet East of the East line of
said Lots 1 and 2, Hialeah, 303 feet to a point on the Southerly line of Van Buren
Street, as widened;

Thence Westerly, along the Southerly line of Van Buren Street as widened, 125 feet
to the True Point of Beginning.

Legal Description per Case No. ABND 200541

That portion of the abandoned 25th Street per City of Phoenix Case No. ABND
200541.




Page 294
Page 295



Report




***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
DEC. 15, 2021) - Public Hearing - Certificate of Appropriateness - Appeal of
Historic Preservation Commission's Decision on Certificate of Appropriateness
Application HPCA 2100117 - 309 W. Monte Vista Road in the Willo Historic
District

Request to hold a public hearing of a Certificate of Appropriateness Decision by the
Historic Preservation (HP) Commission on Certificate of Appropriateness
Application HPCA 2100117 for 309 W. Monte Vista Road in the Willo Historic
District for a request to construct a two-story, 1,152-square-foot garage/yoga studio
at the southwest corner of the lot with an elevated walkway to the main house.
Requested City Council action is to uphold, reverse or modify the HP Commission’s
Certificate of Appropriateness decision.

Summary
On Sept. 21, 2021, the HP Hearing Officer held a public hearing to review this
application, which was filed by the property owners, Bruce MacArthur and Jennifer
Hunter. The Hearing Officer approved the Certificate of Appropriateness subject to the
following stipulations:

1. That the north and south elevations be included in the final Certificate of
Appropriateness plan submittal, along with a perspective view of the historic house
and proposed building from the sidewalk northwest of the property.
2. That the access to the building, by either walkway or staircase, be chosen before
final Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.
3. That all window egress, general building code and zoning issues be settled before
the final Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.

The Hearing Officer’s decision was appealed on Sept. 24, 2021, by Tom Doescher,
Chairperson of the Willo Zoning Committee. The HP Commission was scheduled to
hear the case on Oct. 18, 2021, but continued it to Nov. 15, 2021 at the owners'
request. At the November hearing, the Commission voted 5-4 to uphold the Hearing
Officer's decision with a modification to Stipulation 2, "That the exterior access to the
second story of the new structure be exterior stairs rather than a walkway connecting
the new structure to the historic home."


Page 296


On Nov. 19, 2021, Mr. Doescher, on behalf of the Willo Neighborhood Association
Governing Board, appealed the Commission's decision, sending the case to the City
Council.

Staff finds that the proposed work meets the Standards for Consideration of a
Certificate of Appropriateness set forth in Section 812.D of the Zoning Ordinance.
While the proposed two-story structure is taller than the main house, it meets the
guideline for new construction which states that "where changes in size must occur,
the visual impact of the new construction should be minimized by stepping back the
new construction from the historic building." The new structure is located as far to the
rear of the lot as is possible and is designed to be as low as possible at 20 feet in
height with 8-foot ceiling plates and a minimum of 12 inches between floors for utilities.
There are several examples of two-story structures present in this section of Willo that
were constructed during the historic era (1910-1956) at 325 W. Monte Vista Road, 317
W. Cypress St. and 314 W. Cypress St., as well as other examples constructed after
the historic era at 314 W. Monte Vista Road and 320 W. Cypress St.

Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the HP Commission's Nov. 15, 2021
decision to approve with the following three stipulations:
1. That the north and south elevations be included in the final Certificate of
Appropriateness plan submittal, along with a perspective view of the historic house
and proposed building from the sidewalk northwest of the property.
2. That the exterior access to the second story of the new structure be exterior
stairs rather than a walkway connecting the new structure to the historic home.
3. That all window egress, general building code and zoning issues be settled
before the final Certificate of Appropriateness submittal.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the city.

Concurrence/Previous Action
· The HP Hearing Officer approved the Certificate of Appropriateness on Sept. 12,
2021 with three stipulations.
· The Hearing Officer's decision was appealed on Sept. 24, 2021 by the Willo
Neighborhood Association.
· The HP Commission voted 5-4 to uphold the Hearing Officer's decision, with a
modification to Stipulation 2, on Nov. 15, 2021.
· The HP Commission's decision was appealed on Nov. 19, 2021 by the Willo
Neighborhood Association.


Page 297


Location
309 W. Monte Vista Road
Council District: 4

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




Page 298
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT


To: Ginger Spencer Date: December 29, 2021
Deputy City Manager

From: Alan Stephenson
Planning and Development Director

Subject: CONTINUANCE OF ITEM 104 ON THE JANUARY 5, 2022 FORMAL AGENDA -
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS -APPEAL OF HISTORIC
PRESERVATION COMMISSION'S DECISION ON CERTIFICATE OF
APPROPRIATENESS APPLICATION HPCA 2100117 -309 WEST MONTE
VISTA ROAD IN THE WILLO HISTORIC DISTRICT

Item 104, is a request for Certificate of Appropriateness -Appeal of Historic Preservation
Commission's Decision on Certificate of Appropriateness Application HPCA 2100117 -
309 West Monte Vista Road in the Willo Historic District.

This request is to continue the item to January 26, 2022. The applicant has requested a
continuance due to a family illness. Staff recommends this case be continued to the
January 26, 2022 City Council Formal meeting.




Page 299
dd,DEd
PHOENIX HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER

Staff Report
Certificate of Appropriateness
309 West Monte Vista Road – Willo Historic District
Case No. HPCA 2100117
September 21, 2021

Background
This is a Certificate of Appropriateness application to construct a 2-story, 1,152 s.f. garage/yoga studio with
elevated walkway to main house, at the southwest corner of the lot at 309 West Monte Vista Road in the Willo
Historic District. The application was filed by the owners, Jennifer Hunter and Bruce MacArthur. The property is
zoned R1-6 HP (single-family residential with the historic preservation overlay).

Previous Applications
There are no previous applications at this address.

Property Description
The property consists of an irregularly shaped lot measuring approximately 123’ x 90’ x 114’ x 73’ with a Spanish
Colonial Revival house built in 1928. The historical inventory form and newspapers ads are attached.

Proposed Work
The project consists of constructing a 2-story, 1,152 s.f. garage/yoga studio at the southwest corner of the lot
with a footprint of 24’ x 24’. The building is proposed with both an elevated walkway from the 1930 roof deck,
or a staircase on the new building’s east façade, for the second-floor access. Two garage doors will face the
alley. The building will have a flat roof and top-out at 20’. The rear, 1930 addition with the roof deck is 13.5’ tall,
while the main ridge line of the historic house is 14’. The 2-story garage will be located approximately 99’ from
the right-of-way.

Findings
Like other properties along Holly Street and Monte Vista Road between 3rd and 5th Avenues, the subject
property was constructed without a front curb cut and driveway. These homeowners utilize on-street parking or
alley garages. The subject property did have an alley garage that was demolished ca. 2002; the proposed
building will be located where that garage once was.

The 2-story garage/yoga studio is located as far to the rear of the lot as possible, and as low as possible at 20’
with 8’ ceiling plates and a minimum 12” between floors for utilities. Access to the second floor will be provided
by either an elevated walkway or a staircase, depending upon the decision made in this hearing, or later, what
building code or variances will allow. Due to the proposed building’s location, the homeowners are aware that
one or more variances will be required.

Near the subject property, there are three properties constructed within Willo’s period of significance (1910-
1956) that have 2-story outbuildings: 325 W. Monte Vista Rd., 317 W. Cypress St. and 314 W. Cypress St.; there
are also two properties with 2-story outbuildings constructed outside the district’s period of significance: 314 W.
Monte Vista Rd. and 320 W. Cypress St. Staff finds that the proposed 2-story garage/yoga studio, especially due
to its location and proposed height, will not be an outlier in this portion of the district.




Page 300
Recommendation
Based on the findings above, staff recommends approval of this application.

The application is consistent with the Standards of Consideration for a Certificate of Appropriateness set forth in
Section 812.D of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Three sets of plans should be submitted to Historic
Preservation staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Appropriateness.




Jodey Elsner
Historic Preservation Planner II

Attachments: Historical inventory form
Arizona Republic ads
Aerial photograph
Site photographs
Applicant-provided plans




Page 301
Page 302
Page 303
            

        !!    "




#$  % " &    '  ' (!




Page 304
           

       !"##  $ 




%& '  (   "" ) ) *#




Page 305
Page 306
309 West Monte Vista Road (HPCA 2100117) – Willo Historic District




View looking south/southwest – Street View of subject property




View looking south/southeast – subject property



Page 307
309 West Monte Vista Road (HPCA 2100117) – Willo Historic District
Photos by owners




View looking north – approx. location of 2-story garage south of 1930 addition




View looking northwest – 1930 addition with historic roof deck; 2-story
garage will be to the left (south)

Page 308
309 West Monte Vista Road (HPCA 2100117) – Willo Historic District




View looking southeast – adjoining neighbors’ driveway & approx. location of 2-story garage




View looking northeast – historic houses north across Monte Vista Road.


Page 309
Adjacent House




Property Line


123,4'
Power Pole
Adjacent Garage
24' 6' 53,7'
20' 11,9' 39'
3' Side SBL Water Meter
Adjacent Garage Concrete
Sidewalk
SVT 6,1' Electric Meter 5,5'
10' CL
Walkway/Bridge
24' Garage Doors
60' R.O.W.
17,7' 3' 14'
17,1' 25,1'
PROPOSED GARAGE 6' Gas 16,4' 5'
Height: +/- 20' 35'
2-Story 3,2' 20,9'
4'
8,3' PORCH .O.W.
Walkway
24' 7,5' 17,4' Existing House D - 60 R
73,1'
KIDS 31,2'
ALLEY 25' Rear SBL 29,3'
24,9'
20' front SBL
A ROA
Page 310 Property Line

48,8' Roof Projection Wate TEVIST
Gas Easement

5,8' PORCH
r Eas
16,3'
42'
emen W MON
t
49,4' 14,3' 13,8'
14,8
'
Property Line
Wall/Fence 16,3'
24,7
'
30,4'
10' Side SBL
7,5'
CL

12,5'
109,9'



Property Line




Adjacent House

Adjacent House




Land Use RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 0' 5' 10' 20' 40'
Building Area 2,351 SF
Legal Information BROADMOOR LOTS 1 & 3 LYING New Garage 576 SF
W OF FOL DESC LN BEG 126.78' W OF SE COR LOT 1 TH New Lot Coverage 0.33 Graphic Scale
N AT RT ANG TO S LN TO PT ON NE LY LN OF LOT 3 Lot Area 8,864 SF (0.2 ACRES) 309 W MONTE VISTA RD
Subdivision BROADMOOR Zoning R1-6 PHOENIX, AZ 85003 .com
Legal Lot 3 Alllowable Coverage 40% MySitePlan
Site Plans When You Need Them

SAcale:1"=20'
Legal Block 5 Proposed Lot Coverage 3,400 SF - 39%
Page 311
Page 312
Page 313
Page 314
Page 315














 


 
 










 

 

 






 

 
 
 
 




 


 

 



 
 

 





 
 






Page 316
ATTACHMENT B




Page 317
Page 318
Page 319
Page 320
Page 321
ATTACHMENT C




Page 322
Page 323
Page 324
Page 325
Page 326
Page 327
Page 328
Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332
Page 333



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO ADD-ON (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** COVID-19 Community and
Mobile Testing, Vaccination Health Events and Services - Amendments
(Ordinance S-48260)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendments and
allow additional expenditures on contracts: 152654 with Family Tree Health Care, LLC;
152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories, LLC and Equality
Care Center; 152825 with Vincere Physician's Group PLLC; and 153733 with Premier
Lab Solutions. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This item will have an aggregate amount of $4.9 million. There is
no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) received from the federal government.

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 health care providers to
ensure that community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available
through the duration of the public health emergency. The Public Works Department
coordinates community testing and vaccination service capability to the general public
at community testing health care events. To date, the Public Works Department has
provided approximately 230,000 COVID-19 tests and 10,000 vaccinations at citywide
locations.

With support and authorization from the Mayor and City Council, the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) allowed the Public Works Department to partner with medical
providers to administer 59,723 COVID-19 tests, 8,789 vaccines, and distribute 565 gift
cards through the Vaccine Incentive Program. With the continued COVID-19 surge,
efforts are being explored to expand access to testing to combat increased case
counts and test positivity rate. The Public Works Department seeks authorization to
expand testing options to include the distribution of free at-home COVID-19 test kits to
the general public.

The ARPA Strategic Plan includes $5 million to support COVID-19 community testing
and vaccine services under the Better Health Outcomes and Community Testing and
Vaccines Program. This request seeks authorization to allocate the remaining $4.9


Page 334

million from the ARPA Strategic Plan Contingency Fund to support $3.5 million for
community testing and vaccine services through June 30, 2022, and $1.4 million to
purchase at-home test kits to be distributed to Phoenix residents.

Contract Term
The agreements began on July 1, 2021, for a six-month period, with one option to
extend for an additional six months.

Financial Impact
With this additional funding, these agreements will not exceed an aggregate value of
$9.9 million. This request seeks authorization to allocate $4.9 million from the ARPA
Strategic Plan contingency fund for community testing and vaccination services
through June 30, 2022.

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 Health Care LLC on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021;
· ARPA Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 Premier Lab Solutions - Amendments
(S-47827) on July 1, 2021 extending through June 30, 2022;
· ARPA Strategic Plan Update on Sept. 21, 2021; and
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 Premier Lab Solutions - Amendments
(S-48162) on Dec. 1 2021.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Karen Peters, and the Public Works Department.




Page 335
Page 336



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO ADD-ON (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-16-21-6 (The Paisley PUD) -
Southeast Corner of 31st Street and Clarendon Avenue (Ordinance G-6942)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow
multifamily residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 1.55 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: Pripai Investments, LLC
Applicant: Russell Black
Representative: Ashley Marsh, Gammage & Burnham, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on
Sept. 7, 2021 for information only. The Camelback East Village Planning Committee
heard this case on Nov. 2, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 10-6.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 7-2.

Location
Southeast corner of 31st Street and Clarendon Avenue.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 3641 N. 31st St.; 3105, 3107, and 3109 E. Clarendon Ave.; and 3104,
3106, and 3108 E. Weldon Ave.




Page 337

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




Page 338
Page 339
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-16-21-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.55-acre site located at the southeast

corner of 31st Street and Clarendon Avenue in a portion of Section 26, Township 2

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

from “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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

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




Page 340
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Paisley PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped October 18, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: Hearing draft submittal: October 18, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 9, Development Standards: Add the following statement at the
beginning of this section: “The Single-Family Attached development option
of Table B of the R3-A (Multifamily Residence – Zoning Ordinance Section
616) District shall apply to The Paisley except for as noted within the tables
provided below.”

c. Page 10, Minimum Open Space/Common Area: Revise to read as follows:
“5% of gross area inclusive of landscape areas, amenity areas, walkways
and commonly held tracts.

Landscape areas a minimum of 130 square feet in size shall be applied
toward requirement regardless of level surface area or grade.”

d. Page 10, Landscape Standards Table, Streetscape: Add the following
statement at the beginning of the second column: “Streetscape plantings
(trees, shrubs and groundcover provided within right-of-way between the
sidewalk and individual lot property lines and minimum landscape setback
areas on-site), in accordance with the following standards:”

e. Page 11, Landscape Standards Table, Streetscape: Add the following at
the end of this section: “Common Area Tract - On-site streetscape
plantings within minimum landscape setback shall be provided within a
minimum five-foot wide common area tract along all street frontages.”

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

3. 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 341
4. The developer shall work with the Street Transportation Department to install and
pay for a speed mitigation hump along Weldon Avenue.

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


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

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 5th day of January,

2022.



________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Page 342
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 343
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-16-21-6


WITHIN A PORTION OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

LOTS 1 THROUGH 7, INCLUSIVE, OF CLARENDON SQUARE, ACCORDING TO
THE PLAT OF RECORD IN BOOK 1491 OF MAPS, PAGE 29, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.




Page 344
Page 345



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO ADD-ON (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Public Hearing and
Ordinance Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning Application Z-69-20-6 (Autem
Row PUD) - Approximately 300 Feet West of the Northwest Corner of 16th Street
and Maryland Avenue (Ordinance G-6943)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning
Application Z-69-20-6 and rezone the site from R-O (Residential Office - Restricted
Commercial District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily
residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-O (Residential Office - Restricted Commercial District)
Proposed Zoning: PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Acreage: 0.89 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: East Maryland, LLC
Applicant: AUTEM Development
Representative: John Oliver and William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco, PA

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
4, 2021 for information only. The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard
this case on Oct. 5, 2021 and recommended denial, by a vote of 8-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and continued
the case to Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021
and recommended approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with modified and
additional stipulations, by a vote of 8-1.
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission recommendation on Dec. 9, 2021.

Location
Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland
Avenue.
Council District: 6


Page 346

Parcel Address: 1536 and 1538 E. Maryland Ave.

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




Page 347
Page 348
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-69-20-6) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.89-acre site located approximately 300 feet

west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue in a portion of Section

9, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District) to

“PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

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

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

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

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




Page 349
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped December 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the
following: Hearing draft submittal: December 2, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 7: Update the reference to proposed number of units to 15.

c. Page 8, Land Use Plan: Update the reference to proposed number of units
to 15.

d. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update the maximum density to
15 dwellings units and 16.85 du/ac.

e. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update guest parking to 0.46
spaces per residential unit to reflect minimum of 7 guest parking spaces.

f. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.h.: Replace with the following:

Bicycle parking will be installed where indicated on the attached site plan
(Exhibit 9). A bicycle repair station shall be provided on the north end of
the site in close proximity to the bicycle storage area shown on Exhibit 9.

g. Page 14, Section H.2. Circulation: Update the paragraph to reduce
number of units to 15 and to describe the layout as proposed in the site
plan in Exhibit 9.

h. Page 15, Comparative Zoning Table: Update the number of units, density
ratio, and minimum guest parking on PUD zoning column.

i. Page 36, Exhibit 9 (Conceptual Site Plan): Remove the reference to the
bicycle repair station.

j. Page 4, Exhibits: Delete reference to Exhibit 10.




Page 350
k. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.: Modify the provision that
requires the southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors
and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue, and also the stoops
and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue.

l. Page 28: Revise Exhibit 6 (Streetside Scale Context Exhibit) to be
consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

m. Pages 33-34: Revise Exhibit 8 (Conceptual Rendering) to be consistent
with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.

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

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

6. The developer shall provide on-site trash and recycling pick up, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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


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.


Page 351
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,

2021.



________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 352
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-69-20-6


THAT PART OF FARM UNIT F (OR THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER), SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 9, WHICH POINT IS 336.78 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE NORTH 355.33 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST 162.78 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 355.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING:

EXCEPT THE NORTH 120.00 FEET.

AND ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33.00 FEET.

THIS DESCRIPTION ENCOMPASSES THE PROPERTIES RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 2013-0016773 AND 2012-0878219 OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 161-08-050C




Page 353
Page 354
Attachment B




Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021

Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Designation
Street Map Maryland
Minor collector 33-foot north half street
Classification Avenue
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal seeks to convert a site that currently houses two small offices into a
single-family attached residential development, which will provide more housing options
for residents in the area along a popular bicycle thoroughfare and in close proximity to
bus stops to the east, on 16th Street. The site is also close to the State Route 51
freeway to the east and to commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.




Page 355
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


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.
The PUD (Planned Unit Development) seeks to improve the pedestrian environment
along its Maryland Avenue street frontage with robust tree shade cover, a pedestrian-
scale entrance into the community with bench seating, bicycle parking, bicycle repair
station, decorative way-finding signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, and a decorative
water feature. These elements will help create a pedestrian-friendly environment along
the front of the development and will support users of the existing bicycle route along
Maryland Avenue.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide high quality
urban design and amenities that reflect the best of urban living at an appropriate
village scale.
The proposed PUD development narrative sets forth enhanced design guidelines for
both the architectural style and the site layout for the development. In addition to the
pedestrian-scale amenities provided along the Maryland Avenue streetscape, extensive
requirements for building mass articulation, balconies, a shaded community corridor,
and high-quality building materials, will ensure superior urban design in this part of the
Camelback East Village.
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 proposed PUD narrative includes landscaping standards that exceed those set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance to provide robust tree shade coverage on the pedestrian
realm.


Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 7.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 11.




Page 356
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Offices R-O
Single-family residences,
North R1-6, R-3, P-1
surface parking lot
South (Across
Single-family residences R1-6
Maryland Avenue)
East Offices and retail R-5, C-1
West Condominiums R-3

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone
a 0.89-acre site located
approximately 300 feet
west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and
Maryland Avenue from
R-O (Residential Office –
Restricted Commercial
District) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to
allow a multifamily
residential development.




Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Page 357
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


2. The site has a General
Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. The same
designation exists to the
north, east and south of
the site. West of the site
is the Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre
designation. To the
southeast of the site,
across Maryland Avenue,
is the Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre
designation. Further to
the east of the site, east of General Plan Land Use Map
16th Street, is the State Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Route 51 freeway, which is
designated Transportation. The proposal is not consistent with the Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre designation. However, as the site is under 10 acres, a
General Plan Amendment is not required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is currently
zoned R-O (Residential
Office – Restricted
Commercial District) and
is occupied by two
residential-scale offices.
North of the site are
single-family residences
zoned R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence
District) and R-2
(Multifamily Residence
District); and a surface
parking lot zoned P-1
(Parking District –
Passenger Automobile
Parking, Limited).
East of the site are offices Zoning Map
and miscellaneous retail. Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Page 358
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


The property directly adjacent to the east is zoned R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District), and the property further to the east, on the northwest corner of 16th Street
and Maryland Avenue, is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Retail District). West of the site
are condominiums zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District), and to the south,
across Maryland Avenue, are single-family residences zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District).

The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present
to both the east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling
between those permitted on the two adjacent properties. This will create an
appropriate transition in permitted maximum density to the higher densities closer to
16th Street.
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The Planned
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD sets forth a limited list of permitted land uses for the site. The
development narrative lists Single-Family Attached and Multifamily Residential
Uses, both of which shall adhere to the development standards set forth in the
PUD. All temporary and accessory uses shall be subject to the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The PUD proposes development
standards designed to accommodate a
three-story single-family attached
residential building at a scale that is
compatible with the surround area, with
a maximum height of 35 feet and a
maximum density of 17.98 dwelling units
per acre. The development standards
have been crafted to allow a unique
building layout to be placed on the site,
with centralized pedestrian corridor
connecting the front porches and
entrances of individual units, and drive
aisles with access to individual garages
on the perimeters of the site. Below is a
summary of the key development
standards set forth in the narrative.

Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Works Bureau


Page 359
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


Development Standards
Standard Proposed
Density 16 dwelling units maximum
17.98 du/ac maximum
Building Height 3 stories and 35 feet
Building Setbacks
Front (Maryland Avenue) 10 feet minimum
Sides (east and west) 27 feet minimum at grade level
Rear (north) 12 feet minimum
Maximum Lot Coverage 46 percent maximum
Parking Minimum
Residents 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit
1.5 spaces per 1- and 2-bedroom units
2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom units
1 space per units less than 600 square feet
Unreserved guest parking 0.25 spaces per 1, 2, or 3-bedroom unit
Bicycle Minimum 0.5 spaces per unit
Landscape setbacks
Front (Maryland Avenue) 10 feet minimum
Perimeter 3 feet minimum
Open Space 8 percent minimum
Central corridor with meandering path no
narrower than 3 feet 6 inches and no wider
Central Courtyard Corridor than 10 feet 11 inches.
Building Height Compatibility
The proposed building height of three stories and 35 feet is comparable to both
existing and entitled building heights in the surrounding area. The property directly
to the east is zoned R-5 (Multifamily Residence District), which permits a maximum
height of 4 stories and 48 feet. The existing building height on this site is
approximately 2 stories and 28 feet. The property to the west of the project site is
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), which permits a height of 2 stories
and 30 feet. The current building height on the property is approximately 26 feet.
Further west is a condominium development zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) that permits a height of up to 4 stories and 48 feet. The proposed height of
this PUD is comparable to the existing and entitled heights in this area, as depicted
in the following exhibit.




Page 360
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021




Building Height Comparison Exhibit
Source: Works Bureau
Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth minimum planting requirements for the landscape setback
areas that exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All landscape setback
areas shall include a mix of minimum 2-inch caliper and 4-inch caliper trees,
contributing to a lush overall landscape aesthetic. These trees shall be planted 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with minimum five, 5-gallon shrubs per
tree, and vegetative groundcover to provide 75 percent live groundcover in all
landscape areas. The PUD also requires that all pedestrian paths and open space
areas be shaded to 75 percent shade at maturity.

Fences/Walls
In addition to standard six-foot-tall walls along the interior perimeter property lines
of the development site, the PUD set forth standards to allow for an architecturally
unique front entrance gate and privacy fence that will serve not only security
purposes but will also beautify the Maryland Avenue streetscape. This fence shall
have minimum 50 percent visibility (open fencing), and will vary in height, from
three to six feet. The wall shall adhere to the design intent depicted in the
conceptual elevation for this feature.




Fence Design Concept
Source: Works Bureau




Page 361
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


The overall intent of this
PUD is to provide high
quality architectural
design. The PUD lists
several design guidelines
to achieve this intent.

Streetscape Design
In addition to the artistic
fence element and robust
landscaping, the Maryland
Avenue frontage will be
furnished with a shaded
pedestrian seating area,
water feature, bicycle
racks, and a bicycle repair
station to serve residents,
guests, and local bicycle
commuters.

Building Design
The purpose and intent of
this PUD is to produce a
“design-first” residential
development. The PUD
narrative has listed several Conceptual Rendering
Source: Works Bureau
standards to ensure that the
design concept envisioned for the site is achieved. These include floor to ceiling
windows and doors, interfacing patios, wrap around balconies that front the street,
bay windows, and skylights. The design standards also include minimum
requirements for a mix of high-quality building materials. These design standards
set forth in the narrative exceed the requirements outlined in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance for multifamily residential developments.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
7. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by




Page 362
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


providing an opportunity for medium or higher density residential development.
8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates standards for bicycle parking for residents and guests,
and a bicycle repair station.
9. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. The PUD sets forth standards for large tree plantings
along the streetscape and along perimeter property lines, as well as a requirement
for minimum 75 percent shade for all open space areas and pedestrian paths.
10. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The PUD requires that the development
provide bicycle infrastructure in the form of bicycle parking and a bicycle repair
station along Maryland Avenue, as well as robust tree shade cover for a thermally
pleasant pedestrian environment.
11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste
diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes
standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily,
commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The proposal will
utilize individual trash and recycling bins for each residential unit, which will be
brought out onto the street for city solid waste collection.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12. At the time this staff report was written, staff received twenty letters in opposition
and six letters with general inquiries regarding the PUD rezoning process. Those
opposed to the project cited concerns with height, density, traffic, and the nuisance
of individual trash bins for all 16 units being places on a narrow street frontage.



Page 363
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13. The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems
with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire
Code.
14. The Public Transit Department has required that clearly defined, accessible
pedestrian pathways be provided to connect all main site elements and public
sidewalks, and, where they intersect drive aisles, they be constructed of materials
that visually contrast with parking surfaces. The department further required that all
pedestrian sidewalks be shaded to 75 percent at tree maturity. These standards
have been incorporated into the PUD narrative as regulatory standards.
15. The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer dedicate a
7-foot sidewalk easement along the north side of Maryland Avenue, that a traffic
statement be submitted to the City for the development prior to any preliminary
approval of plans, and that all streets be constructed with all required improvements
and comply with current ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2,
3, and 4.
OTHER
16. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33 feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
17. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.

Findings

1. The proposed PUD will provide a high quality multifamily residential development
which will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.
2. The site is appropriately situated in close proximity to the State Route 51 freeway to
the east and major commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.
3. The PUD will provide significant streetscape improvements along Maryland
Avenue, including robust tree shade coverage, public pedestrian seating, and
bicycle amenities.




Page 364
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 28, 2021


Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date
stamped September 21, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
September 14, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Community Correspondence (39 pages)
Autem Row PUD date stamped September 21, 2021




Page 365
R1-6 C-O*
P-1*
Z-311-79

Z-58-88

R-O * R-5 *
16TH ST
Z-32-97 Z-180-81


PAD-13*
R-3
Z-231-79
Squaw Peak
Parkway
Specific Plan
MARYLAND AVE
R-O *
14TH PL Z-53-13
C-1
R1-6
15TH ST

I
Miles
Z-69-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD


24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD


32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST



REQUESTED CHANGE:
AUTEM Development
APPLICANT'S NAME:

FROM:
R-O ( 0.89 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/05/2021
Z-69-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP


0.89 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.


QS 22-30 I-9 TO: PUD ( 0.89 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-O 1/development N/A
PUD 16 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
Page 366
R1-6 C-O*
P-1*
Z-311-79

Z-58-88

R-O * R-5 *
16TH ST
Z-32-97 Z-180-81


PAD-13*
R-3
Z-231-79
Squaw Peak
Parkway
Specific Plan
MARYLAND AVE
R-O *
14TH PL Z-53-13
C-1
R1-6
15TH ST

I
Miles
Z-69-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD


24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD


32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST



REQUESTED CHANGE:
AUTEM Development
APPLICANT'S NAME:

FROM:
R-O ( 0.89 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/05/2021
Z-69-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP


0.89 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.


QS 22-30 I-9 TO: PUD ( 0.89 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-O 1/development N/A
PUD 16 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
Page 367
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:31 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: info@mssinaz.com; Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Application Number Z-69-20 Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hi Sofia,

I am the President of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, a community located at Maryland Ave and
14th Place, a short distance from the proposed project referenced above. A number of our owners
have expressed extreme concern over the prospect of such a development being approved due to
several factors. This area has been infilled significantly with a number of developments but none as
intrusively as this. I am writing on behalf of the owners of Madison Groves Manor and on my own
behalf. The most prominent reasons we oppose this project are, briefly:

First, the height of over three stories for the buildings proposed is not at all compatible with existing
low building heights that predominate in this neighborhood, which we greatly enjoy, nor would they
blend into the existing profile. The phrase "would stick out like a sore thumb" comes to mind. It
would appear to have been shoved into a much too small lot, rising above structures below like bread
dough when pressed on each side. Townhouse owners next to this property must be beside
themselves at the prospect of being blocked off on their east side. It would also frankly ruin the
appearance of Maryland when turning into it from 16th St with this structure that's so incongruous to
its surroundings. We have a lovely and enviable street that drivers enjoy that would be quite
impacted.

Second, the lot is only .87 acre, so very small for 16 three-story+ units with a pool and
amenities. That's an unbelievable number and hard to imagine not belonging on a larger
property. We are very concerned about the density resulting on such a small lot and the congestion
that would result.

Third, our community of 19 units houses 55 residents. There is no reason not to think at least 50
residents on the low end would live there, especially if the units are three-bedrooms. Maryland traffic
has increased somewhat through the years but is still manageable. Being so close to 16th St would
only increase the traffic and congestion already present with vehicles backing up on Maryland during
busy hours, exposing drivers and pedestrians to possible accidents.

To summarize, this project is simply out of place and we would greatly appreciate your kind
consideration of our deep concerns and disapprove.

Thank you,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President,
Madison Groves Manor HOA

Page 368
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Rebecca Reimers
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:55 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: 1536 East Maryland / Tiffany & Bosco

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Dear Ms. Mastikhina,

I am a board member at Madison Groves Manor (MGM), located at 14th Place and Maryland. I am writing to
you about the proposed development on1536 East Maryland by Tiffany & Bosco. Several homeowners in
MGM have expressed concern to me about this development, particularly about the height (3 story) of the
planned homes. As you know, we do not have homes taller than 2 stories in the neighborhood. If these homes
are allowed, the concern is that it is only a matter of time before other properties on Maryland are also bought
and built up in a similar fashion. With adding many townhomes in such a small footprint, there is also a danger
of more congestion and traffic on an already increasingly busy street.

I am not able to attend the upcoming meeting, but I hope this email helps you understand how current
residents feel about this proposal.

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Reimers
602-743-5028





Page 369
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Chic
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 5:51 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas; Lisa Spresser; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20


Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z-69-20, which deals with the property located at 1536-38 East
Maryland. I have owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate
neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be
clear this entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally
oppose the proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are
the subject of the zoning meeting.

When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area
density is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces.
What I oppose is when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was
distinctly a suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose
these structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the
proposed structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 370
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Jill Peters
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: azm@tblaw.com; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Katie Gerlach
Subject: Resident comments re: Rezoning case Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


January 20, 2021

Ashley Z. Marsh, Attorney at Law Sofia Mastikhina
Tiffany & Bosco P.A. City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700 200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Rezoning case number Z-69-20

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing regarding the recent letter from Tiffany & Bosco P.A. to notify neighboring residents of the rezoning request
(Case # Z-69-20) concerning 1536 & 1538 E. Maryland Avenue, Phoenix, 85014 on of behalf of Autem
Development. The rezoning request is intended to allow redevelopment of the current business property into a townhome
community.

The purpose of my letter is to convey my strong opposition to the proposed development as described in the legal
notice. I also signed a petition of opposition from current residents at 1530 E. Maryland, based on similar concerns. The
primary reasons for my opposition are due to: 1) obstruction of current views due to the proposed 3-level townhomes on
adjacent homes at 1530 E. Maryland; 2) privacy issues; and, 3) construction nuisance for an indeterminate amount of
time.

I have been a home-owner at 1530 E. Maryland since 2011; the east side of my condominium would face the proposed
new development. Part of the appeal of purchasing this property is the location in a desirable area of Phoenix, particularly
one that allows a scenic view of Piestewa Peak from the east side of the condominiums. Based on the proposed blueprint
of the townhomes, the three-level structure would block my and other residents’ views that we currently enjoy. The new
development unfairly impacts a key facet of our current housing community and could potentially adversely impact our
overall value of our properties as well in the future should the development go forward as proposed.

Second, the proposed 3-level structure would be invasive to our properties as the units would overlook into our
condominiums and backyards. The current homes at 1530 E. Maryland are two-level units and our backyards are open
areas facing east. Again, residents like myself who purchased condominiums at 1530 E. Maryland deserve our privacy
and antecedence as current homeowners.

Obviously the new development would result in a lengthy construction period that will adversely impact our overall
neighborhood and in particular the units facing the development. Noise levels would be intrusive and detrimental at any
time, but in particular during this pandemic when residents like myself are working from home and would face these
distractions every work day during the construction period.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments and would request a response as to how the developer will respond
to the concerns of current community residents.

Sincerely,

Jill Peters, Homeowner
1530 E. Maryland Avenue Unit 3

Page 371
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:00 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: New Development on E Maryland

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed new development on E Maryland. Specifically, I am deeply
concerned about the following:

1. This would be the only 3 story building on Maryland Ave which affects the privacy of nearby homes and
look/feel of the neighborhood
2. This would drastically increase traffic on Maryland and visibility with the parking
3. The plan for trash and recycling pickup would place 16 trash bins and 16 recycling bins on the street twice a
week ‐‐ contributing to traffic, congestion, and it is quite unappealing

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Thank you,
Karolyn R. Benger
kbenterpriseconsulting.com [kbenterpriseconsulting.com]

I am offline from Friday evenings until Saturday evenings





Page 372
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:26 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information
Attachments: Z-69-20 Affidavit of Notification Packet 2.pdf


Good morning Katie,

The meeting tonight is organized and hosted by the applicant, and is not associated with the city. This is a
requirement of their rezoning process. So, you are correct that tonight’s meeting is simply to inform and gather
input from neighbors. If you have concerns, voicing them to the applicant at this meeting may be helpful. You
can contact Ashley Marsh at azm@tblaw.com to ask about participating tonight, and I believe the letter they
sent out has a meeting link you can access. I’ve attached their notification letter to this email, just in case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:28 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information

Okay, thanks.

So, if I have owners that would like to speak this would not be the appropriate meeting for that? Also, the purpose of
this meeting is not to approve/table/disapproved the proposed development but rather just for informational purposes?
Is that correct?

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 6:06:23 PM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Page 373
Hi Katie,

This case has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings, so it has not been posted to a public hearing
notice yet. Once the case is scheduled for public hearings, it will appear in the monthly Camelback East Village
Planning Committee meeting agenda.

Thanks,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information

Hi Sofia, I don’t see that the agenda for the Autem Row hearing posted? Unless, I am looking in the wrong place.

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:59:04 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Good morning Katie,

Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings. It is still
in the first staff review stage. As this is a Planned Unit Development request, the case will be required to go
before the Camelback East Village Planning Committee twice – once for an informational session, and then
again at a later date for a recommendation and a vote. Once these dates are set, they will be posted on a sign
on the property, and letters will be sent out to property owners within 600 feet of the site. To register to speak
at upcoming hearings, please email me your request and also use the link on the meeting agenda to register
your information. Posted agendas can be found here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,


Page 374
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hi Sofia,

Is this something you can assist Katie with?

Thank you,
Eric Morales, Planner II
Office: 602‐262‐7927
► Planning & Development Department
Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix



From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:44 AM
To: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hello, Please reply to this customer. ‐ Julie

From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:23 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: upcoming hearing information

Good morning,

Please see email below regarding hearing from customer.
Thank you

From: no‐reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:41 AM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd ‐ Form Submission

Page 375
FROM : Katie Gerlach

SUBJECT : Register to Speak

MESSAGE : Hello: I need to know the deadline to register to speak at the upcoming hearing for the Autem Row
Development (Case #Z‐69‐20) as soon as possible. Also, where do I register to speak? Thank you.

Email : Katie@petersoncompany.com

AREA : 602

PHONE : 7995632

ADDRESS : P.O. Box 15427

CITY : Scottsdale

STATE : Arizona

ZIP : 85267

Submission ID: 459a63d1370a4386a63cd80be457158d

Form Submission On : 1/14/2021 10:41:09 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 376
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Chic
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina; Mary Ann Pikulas; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20


Sofia, per the letter I plan to be in attendance at the hearing tonight. I live at 6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014, and
have also been here 20 years. I am also referencing case number Z‐69‐20.

I have the exact same concern. I am not opposed to seeing the property developed. I am opposed to the 3 story
profile. I would like to see the business model for the property changed to luxury two stories. Part of the value of the
area is the proximity to and view of Piestewa. It would be unfortunate to "see" a mountain encapsulated by high‐
rises. We have other parts of the city trending that way, along the light rail would be a more suitable place for such a
choice. Parking for local markets is also becoming congested due to the infill that has been occurring as older and larger
lots are taking on more units per acre. There is an existing 3 story in the area, but it is on a corner. This proposed 3
story sits between two two story buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.

Lisa French

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:50 AM Chic wrote:
Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20, which deals with the property located at 1536‐38 East Maryland. I have
owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be clear this
entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally oppose the
proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are the subject of the
zoning meeting.

When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area density
is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces. What I oppose is
when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was distinctly a suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose these
structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the proposed
structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 377
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:06 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Chic; Mary Ann Pikulas; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged




As a result of a meeting we now understand that there will be 64'‐0" of trash cans lining Maryland twice a week. 16 cans
with a spacing of 4'‐0". Please add this to my concern(s) about the project.

Case Z‐69‐20

Lisa French
6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:28 AM Sofia Mastikhina wrote:

Good morning Lisa,



Just to clarify, the meeting tonight is an neighborhood meeting organized and hosted entirely by the applicant,
and not associated with any of the city’s hearing bodies. The city hearings have not yet been scheduled for
this case. Please contact Ashley Marsh azm@tblaw.com for inquiries regarding the neighborhood meeting.



I have placed a copy of your email with your concerns in the case file for the record. Please let me know if you
have any questions.



Best regards,



Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A

(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]

Planner II - Village Planner





Page 378
Long Range Planning

Office: 602-256-5648

200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003




From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Chic
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina ; Mary Ann Pikulas ; Maggie Williams
; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20



Sofia, per the letter I plan to be in attendance at the hearing tonight. I live at 6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014, and
have also been here 20 years. I am also referencing case number Z‐69‐20.



I have the exact same concern. I am not opposed to seeing the property developed. I am opposed to the 3 story
profile. I would like to see the business model for the property changed to luxury two stories. Part of the value of the
area is the proximity to and view of Piestewa. It would be unfortunate to "see" a mountain encapsulated by high‐
rises. We have other parts of the city trending that way, along the light rail would be a more suitable place for such a
choice. Parking for local markets is also becoming congested due to the infill that has been occurring as older and
larger lots are taking on more units per acre. There is an existing 3 story in the area, but it is on a corner. This
proposed 3 story sits between two two story buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.



Lisa French



On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:50 AM Chic wrote:

Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20, which deals with the property located at 1536‐38 East Maryland. I
have owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be clear this
entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally oppose the
proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are the subject of the
zoning meeting.


Page 379
When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area
density is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces. What I
oppose is when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was distinctly a
suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose these
structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the proposed
structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 380
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Maggie Williams
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:21 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Zoning Case Z-69-20 Autem

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hello Sofia,

My name is Margaret (Maggie) Luciano‐Williams and I've owned my home at 6518 North 14th Place (Madison Grove
Manor) just west of the proposed development at 1536 East Maryland, for 20 years.

I'm concerned about the density of this complex along with the height of the overall structure. With that number of
units, I'm almost sure there will have to be overflow parking into the street where there is a bike lane. I'm also
concerned about it's proximity to the corner and the traffic congestion that the complex may create in addition to other
dense properties in the area.

While I'm in favor of the neighborhood being redeveloped and becoming more appealing, I don't think the way the
density of the complex will add beauty or functionality to our neighborhood. Perhaps if the number of units were cut by
half and the building height was lower, it would then be more appropriate to the small lot that it will be on.

I'm opposed to the current structure as proposed.

I appreciate your time listening to my concerns.


‐‐
Maggie Williams

Direct Line: 310.990.1231
email: Maggie.P.Williams@gmail.com





Page 381
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Margaret Lochhead
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:08 PM
To: azm@tblaw.com; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: rezoning case number Z-69-20, parcel 161-05-050C

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


To Ashley Marsh and Sofia Mastikhina



I am a homeowner in the neighborhood directly to the north of the planned project mentioned above. I am against the
zoning change because it is a 3 story project. Maryland Avenue has many 2 story multi‐family buildings and I feel to
approve this project will open the door for many more buildings over 2 stories.

In addition, the many zoning changes in our area has led to increased noise, pollution, safety issues and unbelievable
traffic problems and is having a very negative affect on our neighborhoods.

I have attended other neighborhood meetings and have found that the city zoning department never has any answers to
the issues that result from increasing the density in our area.

I would like this project to be terminated or at the very least be redesigned to accommodate 2 story units.



Sincerely,

Maggie Lochhead

1452 E. McLellan Blvd.

Phoenix, AZ 85014





Page 382
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:28 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Re: Application Number Z-69-20 Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Sofia,

Kindly resubmit my email to the applicant. Ashley had not read those submitted by owners from my community yet and
I would like her to see my additional concerns following tonight’s meeting:

Ashley:
Following discussion after the Neighborhood Meeting with other Madison Groves Manor owners, we have no choice but
to submit our very strong objection to plans for trash collection. Lining up 16 trash bins twice a week on Maryland in
front of your project, blighting what has always been beautiful Maryland with unsightly bins and having trash trucks
blocking traffic during pickup on a one lane street each way, is incomprehensible. Debris often drops from these trucks
as well, adding to the blight.

With space between each bin for the lift mechanism, a calculation of needing 64 feet has been made to line them
up. Yikes! If City services are used, a distance of 4 feet between bins is required. Even with each bin touching the next,
this would require over 33 feet. The answer that this is how it’s done elsewhere was less than satisfactory. This is not
elsewhere, this is the lovely, peaceful street we have always been proud of.

The addition of traffic created by this project would be unfortunate enough. Adding dirty, unsightly, often overfilled
trash bins outside as drivers turn onto Maryland would ruin the loveliness of our street and could very well impact the
ability of other property owners to sell their homes at desired prices when time. We are a neat and clean neighborhood
and need to keep it this way for our enjoyment and to protect our property values.

As there would only be four guest spaces, extra vehicles would be parked in the street, adding to a problem already
accelerating. This means two days a week your owners would not be able to utilize the curb in front of this property but
that in front of neighboring ones. This is not good planning. Street parking is already an issue.

Another plan for garbage collection must be found. Sadly, it appears the designers/developers may not have given
enough thought to the needs of the neighborhood or to those of neighbors.

Height is still an issue based on the comments from 1530 next door to this. Again, a 3‐story structure as mentioned in
another neighborhood has no bearing on justifying 3‐stories in our own neighborhood of 2‐story buildings.

Kindly consider these comments. We all want what’s best for all of us, not just the few. We appreciate the meeting and
look forward to other opportunities for neighborhood input.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Pikulas





Page 383
On Jan 19, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:


Good morning Mary Ann,

Thank you for your comments. I have saved your email to the case file for the record and have
forwarded it to the applicant. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:31 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: info@mssinaz.com; Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Application Number Z‐69‐20 Autem Row

Hi Sofia,

I am the President of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, a community located at
Maryland Ave and 14th Place, a short distance from the proposed project referenced
above. A number of our owners have expressed extreme concern over the prospect of
such a development being approved due to several factors. This area has been infilled
significantly with a number of developments but none as intrusively as this. I am writing
on behalf of the owners of Madison Groves Manor and on my own behalf. The most
prominent reasons we oppose this project are, briefly:

First, the height of over three stories for the buildings proposed is not at all compatible
with existing low building heights that predominate in this neighborhood, which we
greatly enjoy, nor would they blend into the existing profile. The phrase "would stick out
like a sore thumb" comes to mind. It would appear to have been shoved into a much
too small lot, rising above structures below like bread dough when pressed on each
side. Townhouse owners next to this property must be beside themselves at the
prospect of being blocked off on their east side. It would also frankly ruin the
appearance of Maryland when turning into it from 16th St with this structure that's so
incongruous to its surroundings. We have a lovely and enviable street that drivers enjoy
that would be quite impacted.

Second, the lot is only .87 acre, so very small for 16 three-story+ units with a pool and
amenities. That's an unbelievable number and hard to imagine not belonging on a
larger property. We are very concerned about the density resulting on such a small lot
and the congestion that would result.


Page 384
Third, our community of 19 units houses 55 residents. There is no reason not to think at
least 50 residents on the low end would live there, especially if the units are three-
bedrooms. Maryland traffic has increased somewhat through the years but is still
manageable. Being so close to 16th St would only increase the traffic and congestion
already present with vehicles backing up on Maryland during busy hours, exposing
drivers and pedestrians to possible accidents.

To summarize, this project is simply out of place and we would greatly appreciate your
kind consideration of our deep concerns and disapprove.

Thank you,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President,
Madison Groves Manor HOA





Page 385
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:15 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


FYI

Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: David Urbinato
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Council District 6 PCC
Cc: Samantha Keating
Subject: RE: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

We’ll forward to the village planner so they can include this in the file for that case.

David Urbinato
Management Assistant II
Phoenix Planning and Development Department
602‐534‐3630

From: Council District 6 PCC
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:30 AM
To: David Urbinato
Subject: FW: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Hi David – here is an email we received regarding an proposed PUD.

Thanks!
Erin

From: TimePro@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:14 AM
To: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Mr. DiCiccio,

Page 386
Last evening I listened in on a meeting about the proposed PUD for 1536 and 1538 East Maryland.
After clearly understanding the proposal for 16 three-story residences, I am opposed to this
development as presented.

This is a neighborhood of predominantly one-story ranch homes. Several homes here have been
updated in that style and are most attractive. Please bring all possible influence available from your
office to the Zoning Committee to oppose this development as presented. If you or another office
wishes to contact me about this, please do.

Your support will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Glenda Whitten
6644 North 13th Street, 85014

We are not all in the same boat. We are
all in the same storm. Damian Barr

*******





Page 387
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Michael Beyo
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:24 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Townhouses on Maryland

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing to express my concern for the proposed development on E Maryland. For the reasons I am outlining here
below I am opposed to this project:

1. Privacy concerns since this would be a 3 stories building and it will impact the nearby homes.
2. Aesthetically a 3 story building will stick out as a foreign object in our neighborhood
3. Traffic will increase on an already heavily trafficked road.
4. The worst idea then is the plan for the trash and recycling pickup would place 16 trash bins and 16 recycling
bins on the sidewalk street twice a week. This will increase stray cats, rats, unappealing view, disruption for
people walking and so much more


Thank You!

Rabbi Michael Beyo





Page 388
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Marielle Brown
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:57 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina; Joel Carrasco
Subject: Fw: Maryland bike corridor

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hello Sofia and Joel,

Jason Stephens from MAG passed this along to me. I think the resident's issue is really with the rezoning case,
rather than the bike lanes. Are you able to respond? Feel free to cc me if you would like. It looks like it is in
Camelback East.

Thank you,

Marielle


From: Jason Stephens
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:50 AM
To: Marielle Brown
Subject: FW: Maryland bike corridor

This came to us, but it's a COP thing : )
You mind responding to this person?
Thanks!
Me

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chic
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:50 PM
To: MAG General Mailbox
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas ; rebecca.reimers ; Maggie Williams
; Lisa Spresser
Subject: Maryland bike corridor

***This message came from an external source. Use caution clicking links and opening attachments.***

Hi Bike Planners:

I am writing to ask for some guidance.

I live on 14th place, 100 yards north of Maryland (1/4 mile to the west of 16th st). Maryland has a stripped east/west
bike paths and sees quite a bit of bike usage every day. Between 16th st and 14th place there are some confusing “no
parking” signs which means often there are cars parked on Maryland, mostly the north side, obstructing the bike lane. It
presents a further hazard in that cars going south from their homes onto Maryland often have an obstructed view of


Page 389
bike traffic going west on Maryland because of parked cars.

We have recently learned of a proposed townhouse development at 1536 E Maryland with what I feel are high density
homes and not enough space to accommodate the parking, and garbage pickup, needs of the proposed development.
To me, this means further blocking and obstruction of the west bound designated bike lane on Maryland when residents
of this proposed development have nowhere to park, or leave their garbage cans out for pickup, other than on
Maryland.

In my mind where the city planners and general public are seeking ways to address congestion, and emissions, allowing
yet one more development that is counter to safe, unobstructed, bike access crosses the line and should not be allowed.

Can you guide me to the proper source for me to voice this concern and get the city involved in protecting
encroachment on city designated bike lanes?

Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place
Phoenix, AZ

Sent from my iPad





Page 390
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Janet Bauer
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:04 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Autem Row Project

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Sofia,

My name is Janet Bauer and I live at 1530 E, Maryland ave #8, Phoenix Az 85014. I am the Vice President of
our home owners association. I am emailing you to express my concerns with this project. I live behind this
proposed project and I know this project will have a definite negative effect on our community. My concerns
include their plans to build a three story complex, trash and recycle as well as parking. We don’t have any
three story buildings and this project will look directly into our backyards. We have a dumpster on our property
for our trash, I cannot imagine 16 trash and recycle cans lined up on Maryland to be picked up Every week.
This would definitely be an eyesore as well as having very negative traffic concerns. We have more than 4
visitor parking spots in our complex and these spots are always occupied and we have a parking shortage now
I can only imagine that this project will negatively impact a continuous exsisting parking issue for us and our
surrounding communities. I plan to be listening in to the com meeting tomorrow evening. Any help concerning
these matters would greatly be appreciated.

Thank you,
Janet Bauer
480-861-0568

Sent from my iPhone





Page 391
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:51 AM
To: Mary Ann Pikulas
Cc: Chic; Sofia Mastikhina; Marielle Brown; maggie.p.williams@gmail.com; rebecca.reimers@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Maryland bike corridor (Z-69-20)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


I agree that having the trash on sidewalks instead of the street might help with traffic, yet it would keep the area looking
unsightly on a regular basis. Maryland was not designed to become an alley. A plan for 8 units instead of 16 would be a
more appropriate solution. Widening sidewalks is a bandaid not a solution.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 7:25 PM Mary Ann Pikulas wrote:
Chic,

So glad to see an effective process to forward communications, nice. One issue, we in
no way meant trash and recycle bins would be placed literally on the street itself, which
was not said at the homeowners meeting nor would make sense, but along the sidewalk
on the street, which was said. Widening the sidewalks is certainly not a solution. There
will still be a trash truck on the street blocking traffic and 16 unsightly bins two days a
week plus piles of bulk trash sitting for days waiting for quarterly pickup. Not a pretty
or healthy picture.

Chic, may I share your email with Maryland Village East and our Neighborhood
Associations?

I would like this email added to the case file.

Mary Ann


-----Original Message-----
From: Chic
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Marielle Brown ; Mary Ann Pikulas ; Maggie Williams
; rebecca.reimers ; Lisa Spresser

Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2021 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: Subject: Maryland bike corridor

Dear Sofia:
Thank you for getting back to me; yes, I would appreciate my comments be included in the case file.
Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place

Sent from my iPad




Page 392
On Mar 1, 2021, at 9:02 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:


Good morning Chic,

I hope this email finds you well. The message below was forwarded to me from our Street Transportation
Department, and they received it from MAG. I believe we have already corresponded regarding this
rezoning case (Z-69-20: Autem Row PUD) previously. Would you like the email below to be included in
the case file, in addition to your previous comments?

As you are aware, this case is still under review by the city, and we are awaiting the applicant’s
resubmittal. In staff’s first round of comments, the Street Transportation Department noted that on-street
parking will not be permitted due to the existing bike lanes. Further, in discussions with the applicant, it
was determined that the trash and recycling bins will not be placed on the street, but rather along the
sidewalk for pick-up. We have instructed the applicant to provide enhanced development standards for
the public sidewalks so that cans may be accommodated without obstructing pedestrian traffic (they are
proposing wider sidewalks, or additional paved areas to accommodate cans).

I have also copied Marielle Brown from our Street Transportation Department, as she handles the
bicycle infrastructure coordination for the city, and may help address any questions you have regarding
bike lane standards, specifically.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

--

-----Original Message-----
From: Chic
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:50 PM
To: MAG General Mailbox
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas ; rebecca.reimers ; Maggie
Williams ; Lisa Spresser
Subject: Maryland bike corridor

***This message came from an external source. Use caution clicking links and opening attachments.***

Hi Bike Planners:

I am writing to ask for some guidance.

I live on 14th place, 100 yards north of Maryland (1/4 mile to the west of 16th st). Maryland has a
stripped east/west bike paths and sees quite a bit of bike usage every day. Between 16th st and 14th
place there are some confusing “no parking” signs which means often there are cars parked on
Maryland, mostly the north side, obstructing the bike lane. It presents a further hazard in that cars going
south from their homes onto Maryland often have an obstructed view of bike traffic going west on
Maryland because of parked cars.

We have recently learned of a proposed townhouse development at 1536 E Maryland with what I feel

Page 393
are high density homes and not enough space to accommodate the parking, and garbage pickup, needs
of the proposed development. To me, this means further blocking and obstruction of the west bound
designated bike lane on Maryland when residents of this proposed development have nowhere to park,
or leave their garbage cans out for pickup, other than on Maryland.

In my mind where the city planners and general public are seeking ways to address congestion, and
emissions, allowing yet one more development that is counter to safe, unobstructed, bike access
crosses the line and should not be allowed.

Can you guide me to the proper source for me to voice this concern and get the city involved in
protecting encroachment on city designated bike lanes?

Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place
Phoenix, AZ

Sent from my iPad





Page 394
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Sandy Grunow
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Crozier; Larry Whitesell; Dan Trozzi; Mary Ann Pikulas; Phoenix Mid-Century Modern
Neighborhood Assoc.
Subject: Case # Z 69-20


Thank you for providing an update regarding the proposed PUD on East Maryland Avenue, rezoning case number Z‐69‐20.

Neighborhood representatives met on March 4th via Zoom call with Autem Development to discuss the proposed project at 1536
and 1538 East Maryland Avenue. We met with applicants, Alexander Diamont and Jared Amzalleg. We offer the following
information as you and your staff evaluate the proposed PUD.

Design: The overall design with driveways on the east and west sides provide a nice setback from the adjacent properties.

Density: The density exceeds surrounding multifamily builds in the surrounding community. We understand some increase is
reasonable but this far exceeds even the newer builds. With so much density, we believe the parking and garbage collection cannot
meet minimum standards.

Guest Parking: Only 4 guest parking spaces are planned for 16 units. Additional guests are expected to park on Maryland Avenue, a
minor collector street servicing businesses, homes, residential complexes, residential streets, and several schools. There are bicycle
lanes on both sides of the street with restricted parking most hours. The existing limited street parking already negatively impacts
Maryland Avenue creating safety hazards especially for cyclists. This also begs the question about deliveries: Where will FEDEX,
Amazon, food deliveries, etc., park?

Trash: The proposed 16 unit three story complex has no plan for commercial trash pickup. According to the developers each unit
will utilize trash pick up by pulling their bins to Maryland Avenue twice a week, one day for trash, a second day for
recycling. Commercial trash as opposed to individual trash bins appears more appropriate for a planned unit development. The
other multi‐family properties on both sides of Maryland use commercial service even though they quality for City services.

Height: We support the maximum 34 ft. height for three stories. The developers were uncertain but may be placing air conditioning
units on the roof which would add to the overall height. We believe 34 feet is consistent with the existing structures that surround
the subject site.

In conclusion, significant parking issues, deliveries and trash collection matters could all be resolved if one or two units were
eliminated. We discussed reducing the density by one or two units with Mr. Diamont and Mr. Amzalleg who are at this time
unwilling. The overall design appears appropriate but without sufficient guest parking and commercial trash pick up it fails to
provide the superior environment anticipated in a planned unit development.

Once the Staff Report is available to public, please let us know. Do you have any questions of us?

Sincerely,

Sandy Grunow, Co‐Chair, Phoenix Mid‐Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Mary Crozier, North Central Phoenix Homeowners’ Association
Larry Whitesell, Co‐Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association
Dan Trozzi, President, Squaw Peak Heights Neighborhood Association
Mary Ann Pikulas, President, Madison Groves Manor Homeowners Association





Page 395
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Deborah E. Basehore
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: PUD Application #Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged




Dear Ms. Mastikhina:

My name is Deborah Basehore and I live at 1530 E. Maryland Ave. I am writing in regards to the proposed re‐zoning
request by Autem Development on parcel #161‐05‐050C, re‐zoning Case #Z‐69‐20. I hereby submit the following
comments and objections:

1. Increased Density: Within 1 mile of my location, 1530 E. Maryland Ave., the number of residential units
(apartments, condos, homes) has increased exponentially with increased mega‐apartment units on 7th St. &
Maryland, condos/townhomes on 12th St. & Marlette, luxury homes on 16th St. between Maryland and Ocotillo
to name a few that have just been built within the last 12 mos. or less. This list is composed of only those
developments on “major” traffic streets within following objections.
2. Since the back of my condo will abut the proposed development, my privacy will be impinged upon due to the
proposed 3‐story height. This will allow the new unit owners a clear view of my backyard and the doors and
windows of my unit.
3. Maryland Ave. already has problems with parking in unauthorized areas. There is no parking on the street
during designated hours. These hours are consistently broken by many people. We have limited guest parking
in Maryland Village East but even those spaces are often used by residents leaving no guest parking. Autem
Development’s proposal will only exacerbate this problem but may be a cause for their residents & guests to
look to park in our guest parking areas.
4. Maryland Ave. already has problems with traffic. At 12th St. & Maryland, there are only 2 lanes, one right – turn
lane and one through lane. In fact, Maryland is a 2 lane street, one for each direction. I work .75 miles west of
our complex but, due to traffic demands and school crossings, I am literally stuck in traffic jams 2 times per day
because there is no left turn lane at 12th St. and 10th St. Adding additional cars to Maryland Ave. will only
increase the existing problems.
5. Infrastructure on Maryland Ave. will be impacted negatively with excessive stress on existing pavement and
potholes, sewer capacity, degrading sidewalks and clean water.
6. Quality of life is an extremely important issue for me. With our area already experiencing awful air quality, with
ozone alerts on most hot days, I suffer even more than others. I have COPD. When will the city planners begin
to recognize that this city needs less, not more, polluting sources? It seems to me that every development in my
area has received a rubber stamp from the city planners without consideration of the existing residents of this
neighborhood.
7. Garbage & Recycle barrels are proposed to be collected by the City of Phoenix. I can only imagine 32 of them
stacked along Maryland Ave., ending up in front of our complex and the building to the east of the proposed
development.
8. Crime has been increasing in our area steadily and my concern is that an “alley” will be created between our
complex and the proposed complex providing an easy dark access for thieves and the homeless.




Page 396
Although these are great considerations in this planning procedure, I am sure that there are many more
concerns from our neighbors in the area so please register me to attend virtually and to make additional
comments at the meeting on May 4 at 6 pm, if time allows.

Sincerely,

Deborah Basehore





Page 397
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 8:51 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas; spresser.mariesplace@gmail.com; chicolder@gmail.com;
maggie.p.williams@gmail.com; rebecca.reimers@yahoo.com
Subject: Case No. Z-69-20 AUTEM Row
Attachments: Z-69-20 AUTEM Row MGM Letter.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hi Sofia,

I am the president of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, one of the nearby communities of the
proposed AUTEM Row project. In February, we submitted a letter with 41 signatures listing our
serious concerns, which were four. Three are still very much a concern as we understand the fourth,
height, is within zoning requirements.

With other Neighborhood Association Leaders in March, I attended a meeting with the developers,
who indicated they would look into these matters. Because we live here, we know and understand
this neighborhood and the issues that especially two of the concerns will present:

First, with limited guest parking, it is inevitable that visitors and delivery vehicles will park on
Maryland Ave. Maryland is a major Bicycle Corridor with a bike lane on each side in east and west
directions. That parking is already allowed on Maryland from 16th Street to 14th Place at any time at
all is very concerning and constantly endangers bikers who are squeezed between parked cars and
moving vehicles. Adding more parked cars, some of which are already parked illegally, will be
extremely detrimental. This only increases the possibility of accidents not only for bikers but for
community drivers trying to turn onto Maryland. Parked cars already block a clear view of the street.

Second, spreading 16 trash containers along Maryland twice a week is not only unsightly but
unhealthy. Besides being a busy bike route, the sidewalk along Maryland is also a favorite walking
path for pedestrians. Our suggestion is for the developers to ask the City to waive the 50 yard limit
imposed on commercial trash trucks entering a community. In this way, large community bins can be
utilized in back instead of having 32 bins, some possibly overflowing, rolled out to Maryland each
week, keeping Maryland clean and safe for pedestrians.

I am attaching our original letter for your reference.

Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President, Madison Groves Manor



Page 398
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Janet Bauer
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 1:15 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Autumn Row hearing

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


My name is Janet Bauer and I live at 1530 E, Maryland ave #8, Phoenix Az 85014. I have many concerns with
this project that is directly in back of my condo.

1. Parking, they only 4 visitor spaces and parking is such an issue in this area, it is definitely not enough. And
the traffic situation on Maryland is already bad and this project will only increase the problem.

2. We do not have 3 story building in this area, this would have a negative impact on our neighborhood and
totally block any views that we currently have.

3. The trash situation as I understand it currently is that they want to put 16 trash cans and 16 recycle cans
directly on Maryland for pick up. This would impact our traffic situation, walking on the sidewalk and be an
eyesore.

I will be attending the meeting but not speaking.

Thank you,

Janet Bauer

Sent from my iPhone





Page 399
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information


Hi Sofia, I don’t see that the agenda for the Autem Row hearing posted? Unless, I am looking in the wrong place.

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:59:04 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Good morning Katie,

Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings. It is still
in the first staff review stage. As this is a Planned Unit Development request, the case will be required to go
before the Camelback East Village Planning Committee twice – once for an informational session, and then
again at a later date for a recommendation and a vote. Once these dates are set, they will be posted on a sign
on the property, and letters will be sent out to property owners within 600 feet of the site. To register to speak
at upcoming hearings, please email me your request and also use the link on the meeting agenda to register
your information. Posted agendas can be found here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information


Page 400
Hi Sofia,

Is this something you can assist Katie with?

Thank you,
Eric Morales, Planner II
Office: 602‐262‐7927
► Planning & Development Department
Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix



From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:44 AM
To: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hello, Please reply to this customer. ‐ Julie

From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:23 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: upcoming hearing information

Good morning,

Please see email below regarding hearing from customer.
Thank you

From: no‐reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:41 AM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd ‐ Form Submission


FROM : Katie Gerlach

SUBJECT : Register to Speak

MESSAGE : Hello: I need to know the deadline to register to speak at the upcoming hearing for the Autem Row
Development (Case #Z‐69‐20) as soon as possible. Also, where do I register to speak? Thank you.

Email : Katie@petersoncompany.com

AREA : 602

PHONE : 7995632

Page 401
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Vanessa and Brian Lee
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 6:59 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Questions re: Z-69-20. parcel # 161-05-050C

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Good morning,

I am neighbor In Madison Manor 2, located in the circle of single family homes north of the planned
development for 3-story townhomes by Autem Development. I attended the neighborhood meeting last
Wednesday evening.

Can you tell me what the next step is in the city review process? We are concerned about the addition of a 3-
story development just south of our quiet circle of one-story single family homes. Neighbors from south and
west of the development expressed their concerns about traffic and the height of the project but I'm not clear
what the north side of development will look like. It appears on the map that we have a small buffer right now
from the south end of our neighbor's property (parcel #161-08-054C ) which butts up against the development.
There is also a parking area to the east (parcel 161-08-054B) of that parcel. Is that correct? Are there any
projects planned for those two sites?

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

Vanessa Lee

1502 E. McLellan Blvd.





Page 402
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 6:32 PM
To: Zander Diamont; Ashley L Loan; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Autem Development Inquiry

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed


You can have a three story building with a two story profile, that does not exceed adjacent buildings. You could go
Haver style (Ralph Haver in case you are not aware of his architectural presence in our community) with the windows in
the bedrooms. The bedrooms could go underneath the garage, in the ground. This could be a win for you as you might
be able to secure a taller garage while respecting the community's wishes or higher ceilings in the living
room/kitchen. Netflix Grand Designs has some excellent examples of this. This would also make the bedrooms more
thermally efficient and private.



On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:56 AM Zander Diamont wrote:
Hey Lisa‐‐

I wanted to first thank you for your concerns and efforts in reaching out.

I want you to know that I hear your concerns about height and want to ensure this is something we have taken into
consideration since our first design meeting. We will be making available a height comparison image on our website for
you. With that being said, our structure is only a couple feet taller than the adjacent structure to the east. Our goal was
to give our three story design a two story profile.

We will be doing all that we can to ensure our design only enhances, and doesn't disturb, the current vibe and
beauty that Maryland Ave offers.

Thank you for reaching out.
Please do not hesitate to call me personally if you have any questions or further concerns. I'm happy to chat!

Thank you :)
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.





Page 403
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 6:44 PM
To: Jared Amzallag; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Zander Diamont; Ashley Zimmerman Marsh
Subject: Re: Autem Development Inquiry

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed


Maryland is a lifeline to the canal for many cycling communities, they are being brought into awareness of this issue. 16
trash cans twice a week is 64 feet of trash cans blocking the cycling lanes. Due to the density you are aspiring for, guests
will be filling the spots not on Maryland, but in front of the houses just south of Maryland. In effect you have
commanded the neighbors to support your project with a design that may be lucrative to your team, but devaluing to
those who have already invested in the area.

You have hired a reputable architectural firm who can do better for you and us. The bike lanes need to be preserved
and guest parking needs to be contained to those living in the project.



On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jared Amzallag wrote:

Hi Lisa,



Thanks for your inquiry and thank you again for putting forth your thoughts for us! We genuinely appreciate your
feedback and we aim to be as aligned with the neighborhood as possible with this development.




In regards to trash collection, we have arranged to have 16 bins collected on two different days of the week instead of
32 bins on one day which is a great help here. This type of bin collection is very in line with communities in the
area/neighborhood and not at all a challenge for trash collection companies to manage. I have spoken with the trash
collection companies myself to ensure there is no issue here.



I understand that there are other developments going up in this neighborhood and that adjusting to the change can have
its pros and cons. Our team has gone the extra mile to create a design first community here that the neighborhood can
be proud of, and we're taking every measure to as accomodating as possible for everyone in the area.

If you would like to jump on a call to discuss any of your concerns, please feel free to let me know and I will make myself
available for you!

Best,





Page 404
Sofia Mastikhina

From: deb.english@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: 1536 E Maryland project

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hello Sofia
You left your email as the person to contact on the zoning hearing and neighborhood conversations this developer is
involved in for their project at 16th St and Maryland.

I have a question for my client that has the adjoining lot to the north. Part of this project encroaches on the setbacks and
is not in the best interests for my client’s property use. What is the process for protecting our setbacks and to know and
be kept aware of the process on this project?

Thank you.

Debbie English
Realtor, Interior Designer, LEED AP


 Uptown Design



PH: 602‐432‐9202
Fax: 602‐386‐1634
Search for Homes in Arizona [homesmart.com]
Search for NEW Homes in Arizona [showingnew.com]





Page 405
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Linda Richards
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:35 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Katie Gerlach; Sarah Entz
Subject: Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hi Sofia,

I am president of the Maryland Village East HOA. We are located next door to the proposed Autem Row
development.

It has come to my attention — and not through channels — that the meeting you were going to be hosting on
this topic on March 2nd has been postponed until April because the developers did not meet the timeline for
submitting their final plans. Is this correct?

The same source let me know that the title of the property in question — 1536 E. Maryland Avenue — has not
yet changed hands. Is that something you are aware of or can confirm?

Best,

Linda

Direct Line: 805-459-1550


--

Author, Journalist, Photographer
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lindalrichards.com/__;!!LkjWUF49MRd51_ry!Ny5SQ6vbyZTExkLaN-
lpY4upIPNiWZGf5FKGsyH2ipAkOFW82t2tyggkZWNNRl_jgdlBbnIzLQ$
Editor, January Magazine
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.januarymagazine.com__;!!LkjWUF49MRd51_ry!Ny5SQ6vbyZTExkLaN
-lpY4upIPNiWZGf5FKGsyH2ipAkOFW82t2tyggkZWNNRl_jgdljffevZQ$





Page 406
Attachment C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-20-6
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of
16th Street and Maryland Avenue


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, presented an overview of the request
and explained that this is simply an introduction of the project and that no action will be
taken by the committee at this time. He proceeded to outlined the site conditions with
the two existing homes that are zoned R-O and have been operating as two separate
home businesses for some time. The site is situated in a fairly densely populated area
and located directly to the west of a commercial corner. He presented an aerial map
depicting other nearby residential developments of similar size and intensity to the
proposed project, explaining that these types of infill projects have happened
successfully within the village. He outlined the public outreach process which included
creating a website with information regarding the project, a neighborhood meeting which
is the first of two required by the city, and several one-on-one conversations and emails
with individual community members. He then presented the proposed site plan and
explained that the main reason that a PUD is being requested is the unique layout of the
site, which proves driveways on the perimeters of the site instead of the more traditional
townhome designs of a main centralized driveway. This then creates an internal
pedestrian plaza that fosters a stronger sense of community and encourages
interactions among residents. In addition to the ability to restrict uses, the PUD provides
the toolkit necessary to create this unique site layout. He then presented the
architectural elevations, noting that the garages will be facing outwards, the front of the
buildings, with balconies, will be facing the interior pedestrian courtyard, and the
Maryland frontage will have the sides of the building. A conceptual rendering of the
Maryland frontage includes landscaping, a bike station, bench and maybe a water
feature. The wall along the street frontage will be made of wooden slats instead of
traditional CMU block, providing a more engaged pedestrian frontage. A conceptual
rendering of the interior of the site shows a pedestrian friendly realm with ground floor


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 407
patios and balconies on upper floors to provide a high-end design product, which the
area needs. He concluded his presentation and made himself available to answer any
questions that the committee has.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Deborah Basehore expressed concern with the proposed density of the project, the
lack of inviting open space, and the impact the development will have on Maryland
Avenue. She explained that this street is not meant to be a thoroughfare and is a two-
lane street that already experiences an overflow of traffic. She also expressed concern
with the trash collection along Maryland Avenue, as the developer is proposing to put 32
individual bins for pick up along the street.

Sarah Entz, representative for the townhomes directly west of the project site,
expressed her community’s concerns with the proposed height, parking, and trash
collection. She stated that this will be the only three-story building in the immediate
area, which is not compatible. Further, there are only four proposed guest parking
spaces for the 16 units, which would exacerbate an already existing on-street parking
problem in the neighborhood. The proposed trash collection, which would put sixteen
trash cans out on Maryland twice a week will make the traffic issues on Maryland even
worse. She explained that they are not opposed to multifamily development but
requested that there be a delay in a decision to allow the developers to work with the
community on addressing these concerns.

Sandy Grunow, representing community leaders of the Phoenix Midcentury Modern
Neighborhood Association, Phoenix North Central, the Peak Neighborhood and
Madison Grove, stated that she and the other leaders have met with the developers to
discuss the proposal. She stated that the driveway design around the buildings provides
a nice setback, but that the density far exceeds the surrounding multifamily
developments and the guest parking is below the 8 required spaces for 16 residential
units. She explained that Maryland is a minor collector road that as businesses, homes,
residential complexes, and several schools. All of this results in a lot of traffic on the
already limited streets, which poses safety hazards, especially for bicyclists. She then
asked where delivery trucks such as Amazon and FedEx would park given the limited
on-site parking. She then stated that the community is supportive the 31.5-foot building
height of three stories, but noted that the developer, at their meeting, had mentioned
needing to go higher, to 34 feet, to accommodate air conditioning units, so she asked
that they go no higher than that. Finally, she proposed two suggestions to mitigate the
density concern: explore adding the lot to the north of the site or reduce the density by
one to two units. Both scenarios would also allow for the inclusion of an internal trash
pick up area, as well as the required 8 guest parking spaces.

Lally thanked the members of the public for their comments and stated that his team
had discussed many of these issues with individuals already. He addressed the concern
regarding the building height, explaining that the City of Phoenix does not include air
conditioning units in building height measurements, but stated that these buildings are
not likely to have air conditioning units on top of them. The proposed building height is
30 feet and, for context, the residential complex to the west has a building height of 26
feet, so there will only be a difference of 4 feet between the two developments, in
addition to a 25-foot building setback between the two. Further, on the east side is a 28-
foot tall building, so the difference is approximately 2 feet. He explained that the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 408
proposed height of this development would be in line with what is existing and would not
be out of character for this area. He then explained that if the site was zoned R-3,
similar to the development to the west, they would be able to build up to 40 feet.
However, the PUD will limit the building height to 30 feet. He then addressed the
concerns about guest parking, explaining that although the City of Phoenix requires a
certain number of spaces, the world has changed and the way people visit places has
also changed, with more and more people opting for alternative modes of transportation
such as bicycles and other non-vehicular travel. The developer is also hoping to
negotiate a shared parking agreement with the property owner to the east of the site to
be able to provide additional parking. The biggest issue with the proposal so far has
been the matter of the trash collection, and the developer will pursue an appeal with the
city to allow on-site trash pickup. Delivery trucks will be able to park on site for quick
deliveries, as most trucks these days are fairly small. He states that all infill
development projects such as this have site logistics issues, but that they will continue
to work with the community to come up with solutions and bring a quality development
to the neighborhood.

Daniel Sharaby asked how many guest parking spaces are required by the city.
Mastikhina replied that the Zoning Ordinance requires 0.5 guest parking spaces per
residential unit in a multifamily development, which would come out to 8 parking spaces
for this project.

Chair Jay Swart encouraged Mr. Lally to work closely with the neighbors to solve the
issues brought up at this meeting before coming back to the committee for a vote,
especially regarding the trash collection appeal and the shared parking agreement, as
there seems to be plenty of space on adjacent properties.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 409
Attachment D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-20-6

Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of
16th Street and Maryland Avenue
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-3


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including its location,
current and surrounding zoning and land uses and General Plan Land Use Map
designation. She outlined the proposed development standards, which include a
maximum density of 16 dwelling units, maximum height of three stories and 35 feet, and
a central courtyard landscape area. She presented a height comparison exhibit
provided by the applicant that shows the proposed building next to the existing
neighboring structures. She the presented the conceptual elevations and explained
some of the proposed design guidelines contained in the PUD, which also address
provisions for an architecturally integrated entry gate and fence along Maryland Avenue.
She stated staff’s recommendation for approval and listed the associated stipulations.

John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, provided an overview of the request
including the site’s proximity to major transportation corridors. He presented the
conceptual site plan, noting that units will have individual garages that are accessible
from the east and west, there will be a central amenity courtyard corridor running the
length of the property, as well as enhanced landscaping along Maryland Avenue. He
then presented the conceptual elevations which depict floor to ceiling windows and
wrap-around balconies. He explained that the intent of the central courtyard corridor is
to create a sense of community among residents, whereas many developments in the
area create division between units through central vehicular drive aisles that split a
development site. He also showed photos of some examples in the nearby area. He
presented additional conceptual renderings of the development, pointing out the central
courtyard, pedestrian-level amenities such as shaded seating, the architectural entry
gate, and bicycle amenities such as a publicly accessible bike repair station. He then

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 410
outlined the community outreach process, which has been ongoing for the past 10
months.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Sarah Entz, representing the community to the west of the subject site, stated that their
community has expressed two main concerns since this case first came to be, and have
expressed these same concerns at the last committee meeting also. The first is the
matter of parking, as the site only proposes four guest spaces to serve the 16 dwelling
units. She stated that this will result in on-street parking and blocking of bike lanes. The
second issue is that of trash collection. The development proposes to place 16
individual trash bins along Maryland Avenue for collection, which will be an unsightly
nuisance and will also block the bike lanes. She stated that neither of these issues have
been addressed by the applicant.

Linda Richards stated that she lives in the community to the west of the site, where
there are 18 residential units served by seven guest parking spaces. She explained that
guest overflow parking is a huge issue there, as there is not enough on-site parking.
She expressed concern at the applicant’s inability to address this concern and stated
that she felt disrespected by the applicant at their neighborhood meeting.

Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair of the Peak Neighborhood Association, explained that the
community started meeting with the developer in March of 2021, where they expressed
their support for this type of development, but that there are concerns that needed to be
addressed first. He stated that the first concern was the proposed ten-foot building
setback along Maryland Avenue, which staff had also been concerned about, per the
first and second staff review comment letters. The applicant had provided examples of
similarly reduced setbacks in nearby properties to justify their request. Whitesell
presented photos and measurements that show larger setbacks on those properties
than what was provided by the applicant.

Sandy Grunow, representing the Phoenix Midcentury Modern Neighborhood
Association, stated that the developer has approached city staff to request a technical
appeal to allow trash trucks to enter and back out of the development for waste
collection. Otherwise, there will be 16 trash cans lined up along Maryland Avenue once
per week, blocking the bike lane and creating safety hazards. She presented an
alternative, per a letter from Megan Sheets, the city’s Public Works Project Manager,
which states the applicant can seek to obtain a variance to allow 90-gallon waste and
recycling bins in an enclosure within the landscape setback. She stated that the
community supports this alternative.

Mary Crozier, president of the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association, stated
that she bikes along Maryland Avenue frequently and that this is one of her least
favorite stretches of the Sonoran Bike Trail. She stated that the bike lanes are
frequently blocked by parked cars and trash bins, as the city is too understaffed to
enforce parking regulations, so this proposal would only further exacerbate the issue.
She also expressed her concern over the reduced front yard setback, which will bring
the building closer to the street and reduce sight visibility for cars entering and existing
this location, which will be a hazard for cyclists on this road. She stated that she is
supportive of new housing in the city, but that there are better ways to solve the parking
and trash placement issues. She also explained that currently the General Plan would
allow this property up to 14 dwelling units and that, if the applicant reduces their request
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 411
to this number, the problems expressed by the community would be solved. She stated
that the community has been asking for this for several months and asked that the
committee strongly consider the challenges that this development will pose on the
community.

Dan Trozzi, president of the S. Peak Height Neighborhood Association, stated that he
has lived in this neighborhood for several years and that the community has worked
hard to ensure positive, compatible changes. He stated that the is not opposed to new
developments, but that there are significant issues with this proposal that have not been
addressed. He stated that if the developer deletes the two units closest to Maryland, it
will solve the concerns with the setback, the sight visibility for vehicles, the guest
parking spaces, and would also reduce the overall lot coverage on the site. He
presented a financial analysis to show that the reduction in units would not be a
financial burden on the developer and that they would still be able to make a profit on
the development.

Mary Ann Pikulas stated that parking has been a critical issue since the community
meeting with the developer in March and explained that Maryland Avenue does not
allow any on-street parking due to the existence of bike lanes on both sides of the
street. She also expressed her concern with the reduction of guest parking spaces,
noting that staff shared the same concern in their comment letter to the applicant, to
which the applicant provided guest parking calculations for nearby developments that
are similarly underparked. She stated that these other developments also have
insufficient guest parking that has resulted in congestion issues. She agreed with Dan
Trozzi’s suggestion of reducing the residential unit count to solve these issues.

Chair Jay Swart asked if the trash collection along Maryland Avenue is imposed by the
city. Mastikhina explained that it is required by code and that deviation from it requires
approval of a technical appeal.

Oliver restated the three main community concerns, which are the trash, the parking,
and the height. He explained that the trash collection method is required by the City of
Phoenix for this type of development, but that they are planning on pursuing approval of
a technical appeal once they receive the zoning, as an appeal cannot be filed until this
portion is complete. Regarding parking, he stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires
1.5 spaces per one- and two-bedroom units, which would total 24 required spaces.
Each unit will have a two-space garage, so there will be 23 parking spaces, which is a
surplus of 8 spaces. The ordinance also requires 0.5 guest parking spaces per one- or
two-bedroom units, which results in eight required guest parking spaces. The proposal
has four guest parking spaces, so they are short four spaces. However, with the eight-
space surplus noted for residential parking, there is an overall parking space surplus of
four parking spaces on the site. He also stated that the city’s parking requirements were
written before the advent of rideshare services such as Lyft and Uber, which are now
more commonplace in people’s lives. He then addressed the concerns with height,
noting that there is only a difference of four to six feet between adjacent buildings and
the proposed project. He then addressed the concern regarding the reduced building
setback, stating that it will be robustly landscaped, and that the city has also been
promoting more walkable urban environments, which include pushing buildings closer to
sidewalks for visual interest.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 412
Chair Swart expressed concern with Linda Richards’ comment that the community was
disrespected at the neighborhood meeting and asked the applicant if he remembers
such an incident at any of their meetings. Oliver replied that he does not recall any such
moment but noted that it is very challenging to run virtual meetings via Zoom when
there are many attendees, in which case some people may not get a chance to speak
or are inadvertently talked over as others unmute themselves. He stated that it is never
the intent of this development team to be disrespectful to any community members and
apologized if that was the impression. He reiterated their openness to community
discussion and has offered up his phone number for members of the community to
discuss the case at any time.

Daniel Sharaby stated that the community has been dismissed and hasn’t been heard
through this process, noting that the applicant’s rebuttal regarding the overall parking
space count does not address the guest parking issue, since most of the spaces will be
provided in private enclosed garages.

MOTION
Daniel Sharaby made a motion to deny the request as filed. Barry Paceley seconded
the motion.

DISCUSSION
Daniel Sharaby stated that the community has been dismissed and hasn’t been heard
through this process, noting that the applicant’s rebuttal regarding the overall parking
space count does not address the guest parking issue, since most of the spaces will be
provided in private enclosed garages. He also fails to see how this proposal goes above
and beyond what is required by code.

Linda Bair expressed concerns over the proliferation of PUD requests, which she
recalls were originally intended to help with development on assemblages of mixed-use
sites. In the past year, applications have been submitted for small sites and have been
an abuse of the Zoning Ordinance, as developers simply want to maximize the height
and density for their projects. She expressed concern with the city recommending
approval for these requests and stated that there needs to be some discussion within
the Planning and Development Department regarding the appropriateness of these
requests. She also expressed concern with the safety along Maryland Avenue, which
already presents sight visibility issues. Chair Swart asked staff to relay this concern to
management to start a conversation regarding PUDs within the city.

VOTE
8-3: Motion passes with committee members Bair, Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Miller,
Paceley, Sharaby, and Tribken in favor, and committee members Swart, Abbott, and
Bayless dissenting.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 413
Attachment E




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021

Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the staff recommended stipulations to
account for changes to the PUD development narrative, per the applicant’s request.

On October 5, 2021, the Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
request and recommended denial, noting the continued community opposition to the
case due to ongoing concerns regarding the proposed density, reduction in guest
parking, and on-street waste collection. After the meeting, the applicant worked with
members of the community on modifications to the request to address these concerns
and has requested modifications to the PUD development narrative to accommodate
the changes made to the proposal. The key modifications are as follows:
x Density reduction from 16 units to 15 units
x Increase of guest parking from 4 spaces to 6 spaces
x Relocation of bicycle repair station to the interior of the development
x Exploration of alternative waste collection methods
The below stipulations list the applicant’s requested modifications to the PUD
development narrative and an additional stipulation to address alternative waste
collection. Staff recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:




Page 414
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021


1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped September 21, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
C. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF
UNITS TO 15.
D. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.
F. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST
PARKING TO 0.40 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT
MINIMUM OF 6 GUEST PARKING SPACES.
G. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.
H. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH
TO REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE
LAYOUT AS PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
OCTOBER 28, 2021.
I. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD
ZONING COLUMN.
J. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE
REFERENCE TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.
K. PAGE 38, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

Page 415
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021


2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP.


Exhibits
Site plan date stamped October 28, 2021 (1 page)
Community correspondence (56 pages)




Page 416








7 9






LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: TIFFANY AND BOSCO, P.A.
2525 E CAMELBACK ROAD, 7TH FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
WILLIAM E. LALLY ESQ./ WEL@TBLAW.COM
5 602-452-2716
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHTING BOLLARDS
@ APPROX 20’OC
(TYP)



BENCH
P5



P6


15 30
7.5

Page 417
















(MUST BE PROVIDED)
(MUST BE PROVIDED)
21 OCTOBER 2021




PUD APPLICATION
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 5:08 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Development on Maryland Street

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing about my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recyling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland, will cause problems for
bikers and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic
lane, creating a horrible risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our
street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a
special classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus
residents possibly living there, each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on
Maryland this takes away the bike lane and blocks driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland.
It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the
developers to address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street.
This is truly scary when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,

KarolynBenger
Sentfrommyphone





Page 418
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: John T. Oliver; Mary Ann Pikulas; Linda Richards; Sandy Grunow; Dan Trozzi
Subject: Z-69-20 Autem Row Meeting Recap
Attachments: 19 Oct 2021 Meeting Recap.pdf


Goodmorning,SofiaͲ

ThisemailistosharewithyoutheresultofarecentmeetingbetweenMr.Oliverandneighborhoodrepresentatives
concerningtheAutemRowapplication,ZͲ69Ͳ20.Iofferedtosendthismeetingrecaptoyousoyouareawareofthe
positionoftheneighborhoodrepresentativesonseveralissues.ThereareacoupleofitemsthatMr.Oliverindicatedare
encouragedbyZoningstaff.Hesupportedmyoffertoinformyouaboutourremainingissuessothatpossiblerevisionof
thoseitemswouldnotbecomeconcernsofZoningstaff.

Pleasecontactmeifyouwanttodiscussanyofthecontentsoftheattachedmeetingrecap.

LarryWhitesell,CoͲchair
thePEAKNA
602Ͳ370Ͳ8453





Page 419
On Tuesday, October 19th several neighborhood representatives met virtually with John Oliver, Law
Clerk at Tiffany & Bosco, who represents the Autem Row developers. Mr. Oliver reached out to us to
discuss the developer’s revision of the site plan to eliminate 1 unit and increase the guest parking spaces
to 6. While we appreciate their willingness to make this revision, the proposal still lacks neighborhood
support for several reasons. We discussed these in detail with Mr. Oliver.

1. The developers are considering elimination of 1 unit, possibly unit 8 on the current site plan, the
north-west unit.

2. Guest Parking: Elimination of 1 two bedroom unit reduces the required guest parking spaces from 8 to
7.5. Adding 2 spaces to the original proposal of 4, gets closer to the required number. The 2 spaces
would be located in the north-west corner of the property next to the already planned 2 spaces and
turnaround. However, there is still great concern about the likelihood of guest parking on Maryland in
the bike lane. More about this is in the solutions paragraph below.

3. Trash and Recycling: Mr. Oliver has stated on several occasions that they would submit a technical
appeal to make it possible for a centralized collection compound to be used rather than 15 individual
bins being placed on Maryland in the bike lane twice per week. We support this proposal but with a
modification of the proposed location of the compound. They are considering the compound being
located in the north-west corner of the property. We have an alternative proposal below.

4. Bicycle Storage/Repair/Bench: Mr. Oliver stated this is an amenity encouraged by Zoning staff. We
expressed a concern about having a bicycle storage/repair area and bench that is in the landscape
setback on the south side of the proposed fence. We believe that having an unsecured area open to the
public is a potential attraction to individuals living on the streets.

Please be aware of the current conditions in the area. Maryland dead-ends at the St Rt 51 wall just 1500
feet from the subject property. This is where several homeless people locate. There is a large single
family detached (R-1-6) development under construction on the south side of Maryland, east of 16th St
at the freeway wall. This will cause the unhoused people to relocate. It is predictable that some will
move to any area that provides shelter and seclusion, such as the proposed bike area and bench.

We stated that homeowners in the complex will likely store their bicycles in their garages, especially
with more room created by not having to locate their trash and recycling bins in the garage. Also, the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan does not mention having publicly accessible bike storge and repair.
There are two recent cases in Camelback East VPC, Z-920-6 the Willowick PUD south-west corner of 16th
St & Colter, and Z-65-20 PUD at 5727 N 7th St., that included bike storage/repair within the confines of
the buildings. Note these are apartments without individual garages, unlike Autem Row that is owner
occupied with individual garages.

5. Front Set-Back: We continue to be concerned with the front set-back. Mr. Oliver stated that Zoning
staff was interested in having the front of the building interact with the sidewalk/street. We understand
this concept as it is incorporated into the Walkable Urban Code. The subject property is not close to any
area that is in the WU Code or Transportation Oriented Districts. Also, in two reviews by Zoning staff of
the proposed develop, Zoning staff stated that they were not in agreement with the limited front set-
back. That concern is dropped in the 3rd review and staff report. The neighborhood representatives still
hold that concern.




Page 420
6. The neighborhood representatives proposed the following solutions that resolve every issue. We
strongly encourage the developer to eliminate 2 units, preferably units 1 and 9 on the south side of the
site. This would provide ample area for:

a. 4 more guest parking spaces bringing the total to 8 (7 would be required).

b. locating the centralized trash/recycling compound at the street side of the property but behind the
fence, thus eliminating 15 trash and recycling bins being placed in on Maryland in the bike lane, and
eliminating the need for a technical appeal because the collection truck would not have to back up more
than 50 feet.

3. putting bike storage/repair behind the fence in a secure area if needed at all.

4. the south facing wall of the closest units to be approximately 37 feet from the curb. This eliminates
the looming 32’ high, 80 linear foot wall close to the public sidewalk and street. We are not opposed to
having the 3’-6’ graduated view fence located as currently pproposed approximately 17’ from the curb.
This will still provide interaction between the project and the sidewalk/street.

Mr. Oliver said he would discuss the input from the meeting with his clients. We anticipate a reply and a
revision of the site plan fairly quickly, or for a continuance of the Planning Commission agenda item to
be requested to give the developer time to consider changes and to submit a revised site plan.




Page 421
Racelle Escolar

From: Michael Cocanower
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:57 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Project Z-69-20 Autem Row



HelloͲ

IwouldjustliketosharemyfeedbackregardingtheproposedAutemRowproject(referencedinthesubject)whichis
proposedforMarylandAvenuejustwestof16thStreet.

Ilivejustnorthof14thPlaceandMarylandͲdownthestreetfromtheproposedprojectͲat6510N14thPlace.

WhileIwouldliketoseemoreofthistypeofprojectininfilllocationsthroughtheneighborhood,thisprojecthaswhatI
wouldconsidertobetwoflawswhichhaveexistedforaslongasI'veknownabouttheprojectandhaveNEVERbeen
addressedbythedevelopersinspiteofconcernsrepeatedlyexpressedtothembyneighborhoodgroups,residents,and
eventhePlanningCommittee.

First,theprojecthasinadequateguestparking.InmyopinionthiswillcreateadditionalstreetparkingalongMarylandͲ
analreadyoverlycongestedstreetparkingareaͲmakinganexistingproblemevenworse.Thesevehiclesmakevisibility
gettinginandoutof14thPlaceverydifficultandalsoblockthebikelane.ThecontrastbetweenMarylandeastof16th
Street(wherenostreetparkingisallowed)andwestof16thStreetisstarkintermsofcurbappealandoverall
appearance.Idon'tfeelthisprojectshouldbeapprovedwithlessthantherequiredvisitorparkingspaces.

Second,theprojectdoesnothaveenoughspaceforcommercialtrashpickup.Withoutavariancefromthecitytoallow
garbagetruckstoenterthedevelopment,thatwillmean32trashcontainersalongMarylandweekly(16homesinthe
development,eachwithatrashandrecyclecontainer).Giventheexistingparkingissuesdescribedabovewhichwillbe
madeworsebylackofrequiredguestspaces,I'mnotsurewherethese32containerswillgo.Irunalongthissectionof
Marylandtwiceperday,andalreadyhavetonavigatetraffic,parkedcars,andpedestrians.Adding32trashcanswill
makeitimpossible,andthatdoesn'tevenconsiderhowunsightlyitwillallbe.

IwouldstronglyencourageyouNOTtoapprovethisprojectassubmitted.Ibelievetherearesolutions(manyofwhich
havebeenofferedduringneighborhoodandplanningcommitteemeetings)whichcansolvebothoftheseproblems
(suchasreducingthenumberofunitsintheproposeddevelopment).Thiscouldbeagreatprojectifproperlydesigned,
butIdonotfeelitshouldbeapprovedinitscurrentform.

Thankyouforyourconsideration.

MichaelCocanower




Page1 422
Racelle Escolar

From: Lyndon Hara
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 8:43 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Sandy Grunow; Lyndon M Hara
Subject: Re: Item #20, case number Z-69-20-6 1536 and 1538 East Maryland Avenue



DearSir:
IamaresidentintheMadisonneighborhood(RoseLaneand7thSt.).
Iamwritingtoyouabouttheconcernswehaveabouttheproposeddevelopmentat1536and1538EastMaryland
Avenue.

Ourconcernsare:
1.HighdensitytrashcontainersstoredonMarylandAve2xperweek.
2.Bikelaneblockage.
3.Lesserpropertysetbackrequirement.
4.Lesserminimumparkingspotrequirement.
5.Toohighlivingdensityattheproject.

Pleasehavethedeveloperaddresstheseissueswithanadequateabatementplan.

Shouldyoudesireadditionalinput,pleasefeelfreetocontactme.

Thankyou.

Sincerely,

LyndonHara,CSP
ChandraHara
736ERoseLane
Phoenix,AZ85014
6025181852







Page1 423
Racelle Escolar

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:32 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Item #20 case number z-69-20-6


I am writing to express my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recycling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland Street, will cause problems for bikers
and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic lane, creating a horrible
risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a special
classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus residents possibly living there,
each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on Maryland Street this takes away the bike lane
and blocks the driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland. It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the developers to
address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street. This is truly scary
when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,
KarolynR.Benger
kbenterpriseconsulting.com[kbenterpriseconsulting.com]

IamofflinefromFridayeveningsuntilSaturdayevenings




Page1 424
Racelle Escolar

From: Pat Mayer
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 12:33 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6



Greetings,
IamwritinginoppositiontotherequestedAutemRowPUD,item20ontheNovember4,2021schedule.

Thedeveloperforthiscondominiumistryingtocram20poundsofflourintoa5poundsack.Sixteenunitsonthesetwo
plotsisseveralunitstoomany,withnoplansforcommunaltrashdumpsters.MarylandAve.isalreadyaproblem,with
toomanypeopleparkingtheircarsoutsideofallowedtimes,andinanarrowshouldernotreallywideenoughforsafe
parking.Iwalkthatwayoftenandjusttheotherdaysawaparkedcarthathadbeenhit,presumablyovernight,
sustainingreardamageandgettingpushedintotheparkedcarinfrontofit.Imaginehowmuchworseiftheresidentsof
AutemRowhavetheir16trashand16recyclebinslinedup,onthesidewalkorinthestreet.Carswilleitherparkthere
andblockthedumpstersorwillparkfurtherdownthestreet,compoundingthealreadyproblematicsituation.Bicyclists
andpedestrianswillencountermoreobstaclesandrisks.

Iftheywouldscalebackthesizeofthedevelopmentandallowforcommunallargedumpstersandroomforthetrucks
tomaneuver,aswellasperhapsmorevisitorparkingspaces,theywouldfindfewerobjectionsfromtheneighborhood.

PatriciaMayer
815E.RoseLane,unit119
Phoenix,AZ85014





Page1 425
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Z-69-20-6 PUD Planning Commission Hearing 11-4-21



From:SandyGrunow
Sent:Monday,November1,20211:15PM
To:PDDZoningAdjustment;SofiaMastikhina
Subject:ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ6PUDPlanningCommissionHearing11Ͳ4Ͳ21

DearChairmanandMembersofthePlanningCommission:

IrepresentthePhoenixMidͲCenturyModernNeighborhoodAssociation.AfterattendingthefirstAutemDevelopement’s
neighborhoodmeetingofJanuary20,2021,myselfandotherneighborhoodleadersmadeseveralattemptstomeetwiththe
Developerandtherepresentinglawfirm.WefinallymetwiththeDevelopersonMarch4,2021,attendedthesubsequent
neighborhoodmeetings,thenmetvirtuallywiththelegalrepresentativeJohnOliveronOctober19th.

FromtheverybeginningwecommunicatedthefollowingconcernswiththeproposedPUD:
Density,height,buildingsetback,onstreettrashcollection,guestparking

Density:16threestoryunitson.87acresfarexceedsthedensityalongMarylandAvenuebetween12thStreetand16thStreet.Is
thisproperuseofthePUDdesignation?AmemberoftheCamelbackEastVillagequestionedthisuseaswell.

Height:Theproposedthreestorytownhouseat35feetinheightisnotinkeepingwiththismidͲcenturymodernneighborhood.
Singlefamilyresidentsandresidentialcomplexesareconcernedabouttheirprivacy.

Buildingsetback:Theproposedsetbackof10feetisdramaticallylessthanothercomplexesalongMarylandAvenuebetween12th
Streetand16thStreet.Thesetbacksare20to27feet.

TrashCollection:Duetotheproposeddensitythereisnoroomforbulktrashcollection.TheDevelopersplanforthetownhouse
residentstotaketheirtrashtothestreetononedayforpickupthesecondday.Thentheindividualrecyclingcontainerswouldbe
rolledoutyetanotherdayforpickup.Keepinmind,thecollectioncontainerswillsitinthebikelanefor3to4daystotaleach
week.Cyclistswillhavetorideintothemotorvehiclelanescreatingasafetyhazardwithpotentialforinjury.The16collectioncans
willcreateahazardasdriversexitingthepropertyfromtheeastandwestdrivewayswillhavetheirviewofEastMaryland
obstructedespeciallyiftheydrivealowprofilevehicle.

GuestParking:TheDevelopersplannedfor4guestparkingspaceswhen8spacesaremoreappropriate.Allowinglessthan8spaces
wouldrequireonthestreetparking.EastMarylandAvenuecontainsbikelanesonboththenorthandsouthsides.Maryland
AvenueisverybusyattimesespeciallywhenMadisonTraditionalAcademyandRoseLaneSchoolsareinsession.MarylandAvenue
isalsotheroutetoMadisonMeadows.Duringtwomeetingswiththedeveloper’slegalrepresentativeweweretoldthatguestsare
resourcefulandcanparkinsurroundingparkinglots.Trespassingshouldnotbeencouraged.

WeneighborshavegoneoutofourwaytocommunicatewiththeDevelopersandtheirlegalrepresentative.Mostmatterscouldbe
resolvedifthedensitywasreducedbytwounits.TheDevelopers’responsewasthe16unitswerenecessarytoarriveattheir
desiredreturnoninvestment(ROI).Isuggesttheirproposedbuildisnotappropriateforthissite.

Lastly,belowpleaseseeaphotooftheDeveloper’ssigncommunicatingthedesignatedhearingdatestothecommunity.One
cannotseethesignfromthestreetwithoutenteringthepropertybehindthetallhedge.Whyisthisrequirednotificationbeing
hidden?

SandyGrunow
602Ͳ819Ͳ1482





Page1 426













Page2 427
Racelle Escolar

From: art schneider
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 2:15 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6- ( Autem Row Pud)



Iamopposedtothisdevelopmentunlessafewchangesoccur.

1.Reducethedevelopmentbytwounits.
2.Moreguestparkingspacesmadeavailable.
3.Provideareaforenclosedtrashcontainment.IamagainsthavingtrashandrecyclebinsonMarylandAve.

Thankyou,
ArtSchneider
6504N14thPl
Phoenix85014




Page1 428
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ

Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL
October30,2021

MembersofthePlanningCommission
RE:Item#20,Case#ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ06
1536Ͳ1538E.MarylandAvenue
Agenda:11/4/2021

DearMembersofthePhoenixPlanningCommission,

Iwriteasanadvocateforpreservationthroughoutourcity.ThereareneighborhoodsinPhoenixthat
mayneverhaveachancetopreserveimportantearly20thCenturyandsignificantMidͲCenturybuildings
ifincompatible,poorlythoughtͲoutdevelopmentssuchasthisoneproposedfor1536Ͳ1538East
MarylandAvenueareallowedtoflourishat35’inheight.

Homeownersinthevicinityoftheproposeddevelopmenthaveindicatedtomethattheareabetween
7thStreetand16thStreethasnumerousresidencesofhistoricsignificance.

Forexample:thePalmLaneGardensCondominiumsat1441EastMarylandAvenue,with25singlestory
unitswasbuiltin1958.ThereareseveralothersingleͲstorypropertiesalongEastMarylandAvenue
datingbackto1925.

Pleasedenythisoutofscaledevelopmentat1536Ͳ1538EastMarylandAvenue.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsiderationofthesefacts.


G.G.George,President
EncantoCitizensAssociation&PhoenixHistoricNeighborhoodsCoalition
1102W.PalmLane
Phoenix,AZ85007
602Ͳ252Ͳ3151






Page 429
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Addendum to previous email - Item 20, Z-69-20-6



From:MaryMulligan
Sent:Monday,November1,20211:11PM
To:PDDPlanningCommission
Cc:SofiaMastikhina
Subject:AddendumtopreviousemailͲItem20,ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ6

PlanningCommissionͲ

IamsendinganaddendumtoanemailofoppositionthatIsentearlierthismorning.I’dlikeforyoutoexaminethe
followingtwophotographs.

Aftersendingyoutheearlieremail,Iwantedtocheckoutthelocationofthesubjectpropertyonceagain.BeforeI
realizedit,Ihadcompletelypassedtheproperty.Thepositionofthezoningsignisdisgraceful.Thankyouforthe
opportunitytocommunicatewithyouonceagain.

ͲMary

ViewfromMarylandAvenue,lookingeastward.Interestingthatthe“Available”signissostrategicallyplaced.Compare
tothezoningsigninthebackground:




Page1 430


Apedestrian’sview,lookingwestwardonMaryland.Lookcarefully;there’sazoningsignintheresomewhere!:




Page2 431




Dear Planning Commissioners:

We are writing regarding case Z-69-20-6, item 20 (1536 and 1538 E. Maryland Avenue). We are opposed to the granting
of a PUD.

For the record, we walk and drive regularly past this location, and by the way, even though we were updated about this
proposal several times by a concerned neighbor, we didn’t see the posted zoning sign for months due to its
unconventional placement in an obscure spot. We were surprised to realize we’d passed it many times in our car as well
as on foot without noticing it.

The applicant’s narrative tells us that so many things are wrong with this lot that the only way this project can be
completed is by changing the rules - numerous rules - through a PUD.

To the detriment of the surrounding community, the applicant wants to change characteristics including:

x Parking
x Density

Page3 432
x Height
x Setbacks
x Lot coverage

Clearly, the parcel is not appropriate for the proposed project when so many factors are incompatible with the project plan.
Furthermore, in our opinion, a PUD is not appropriate for a lot of only .89 acres.

Benefit to a developer should not come at the expense of the surrounding community; a project should be mutually
beneficial to both.

Apparently, however, this developer expects surrounding businesses to accommodate guest parking that the developer is
in part unwilling to provide.

Apparently the developer is unconcerned with pedestrians and cyclists who use the sidewalk and bike lane, and drivers
who park along the 160’ of frontage on Maryland (minus the width of the project’s two driveways), who would be adversely
impacted because the developer does not plan to provide bulk trash pickup, as is done in nearby complexes.

Imagine the nuisance and aesthetics of 16 trash barrels lined up 4’ apart along this small stretch of Maryland on one day,
and 16 recyclables cans on another - and potentially up to 16 cans of curbside green organics containers if future
residents are concerned about the environment!

Apparently the developer thinks this project merits an exception to the typical streetside setbacks in the area (about 25’
along Maryland), requesting a significant decrease to a mere 10’. (How does this benefit the neighborhood?)

Neighbors have expressed legitimate concerns regarding this project through appropriate channels. If the developer is
unwilling to modify plans out of respect for the neighborhood or if the project is not financially feasible under existing
zoning, surely a more appropriate site can be located in this, the fifth large city in the country, that will result in a project
that satisfies both the surrounding community and the requirements of this ambitious project.

Please deny this zoning change request.


Sincerely,

John E. Hathaway
Mary K. Mulligan
125 E. Maryland Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85012




Page4 433
Racelle Escolar

From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 9:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-69-20-6 Autem Row
Attachments: Written Submission.pdf; Exhibit A - Lot Sales.pdf; Exhibit D - Response to Set-backs - 2nd Review.pdf; Exhibit C -
Front Setback Comparison.pdf; Exhibit B - Comparison Setbacks.pdf; Exhibit F - Sheets re Centralized
Collection.pdf; Exhibit E - Trash Can Placement.pdf; Exhibit F - SW Standard Page 4 RETROFIT.pdf



Phoenix Planning Commission
Submitted via email: pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov November 1, 2021

Rezoning Case: Z-69-20-6 Autem Row PUD
Meeting Date: November 4, 2021 
Agenda Item: 20


Dear Planning Commission Members:

I have been involved with the above PUD application since reaching out to the developers for a meeting that
was held March 4th. The meeting participants told the developers at the time, and we still agree, that we
support a development of this nature at this location. However, there were then, and still are, a few areas of
concern. 

During our preparation for the public hearing process we tracked three project proposals submitted by the
applicant, the Zoning Staff reviews of those proposals, the applicant responses, and the Staff Report that
resulted. Our analysis found that several important concerns stated by Zoning Staff are not resolved. We share
those concerns. These include lot coverage, front setback, guest parking, and trash/recycling collection.
Bicycle storage and repair is another concern of affected neighbors. Public safety was not directly addressed
by Zoning Staff but must also be considered. It is impacted by all of the above unresolved concerns.

It is notable that the Camelback East VPC voted 8-3 to deny the application. It is rare for Camelback East to
not just deny, but to so overwhelmingly deny, a rezoning case.

Especially notable is that member Daniel Sharaby made the motion to deny, and stated that in his time on the
Camelback East VPC, he remembers voting against a rezoning case maybe 1 other time. His stated concerns
are: 1. inadequate guest parking; 2. the applicant stated guests would find parking on nearby commercial lots;
3. using resident parking allocation of 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit to make up for lack of required guest
parking; 4. not 1 neighbor wrote or spoke in favor of the project.

Another member, Linda Bair, stated that she is concerned about the application for PUDs that do not comply
with the purpose of a PUD – for developers to be able to put together projects on two or more parcels that
have different zoning categories. She stated developers are using the PUDs as a way to build too high and too
dense than would otherwise be allowed.

We have been told that the applicant is planning to revise the project to address the issue of guest parking.
However, as of submitting this statement of opposition, that revision has not been shared with us.

The issues of Lot Coverage, Building Setback, Guest Parking, Trash/Recycling Collection, and Safety are
addressed in the attached review of Zoning Staff concerns, applicant responses, and realities. Several exhibits
are included to illustrate the relevant points.

Your careful review of this information is appreciated. I look forward to speaking on this case at the upcoming
meeting.

Page1 434
Sincerely,
LarryWhitesell,CoͲchair
thePEAKNA
602Ͳ370Ͳ8453




Page2 435
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 1


I. Lot Coverage
1st Review – Zoning Staff
Lot coverage should not exceed 35% net
Status of patios being part of 100% lot coverage for individual lot sales
Applicant Response: Resubmittal shows a lot coverage of forty-six percent based on net area.

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
46% lot coverage is still a concern
100% lot coverage for individual lots still remains
Recommend maximum lot coverage for individual lots and minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
46% maximum lot coverage based on net lot area
Minimum individual lot coverage % is not being proposed at this point in time

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report
The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present to both the
east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling between those
permitted on the two adjacent properties.

REALITY
x The Staff Report is comparing what could have been built on adjacent properties per zoning
districts, not what was actually built. Actual developments have less density than maximum
allowable.
x “…at this point in time.” is an opportunity for the applicant to convert to individual lot sales In
the future. In fact, the Site Plan, pg 7, Proposed Development – PUD
“LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES” (Exhibit A)

II. Building Setbacks
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Maximum Building Setbacks – Divide into perimeter and individual lots
Consider a minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time
Yards have varying depth with 10' setback as minimum
nd
2 Review – Zoning Staff
Staff still not supportive of 10' setback along Maryland. Average setback on Maryland is 30';
closest building (east) is 20' from property line
Applicant Response:
x Setback is more than 3 properties, property address provided as evidence
x More advanced architecture than the properties listed above; the impact to Maryland Avenue
will not be as substantial
x 6'6" more between property line and sidewalk
x Open fence, lush landscape and bench

Page 436
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 2


rd
3 Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report – This concern is not addressed

VPC Presentation
In rebuttal to my evidence that the 3 properties cited as examples of having closer setbacks, Mr.
Oliver stated that he was referring to Landscape setbacks.

REALITY:
x Setbacks on properties on the east, west and south side of the proposed development are
farther from the sidewalk. (Exhibit B)
x The buildings of the properties cited by the applicant are farther from the sidewalk than the
proposed development. (Exhibit C)
x 2 of the 3 properties cited by the applicant are side yard set-backs. The property addresses
are not on Maryland.
x The written document in which Mr. Oliver cited the 3 properties as having less setbacks is
under Building Setbacks, not the section on Landscape setbacks. (Exhibit D)
x The proposed development parallels Maryland with a building wall of of approximately 80
linear feet, 32 feet high within 17’ of the sidewalk. This is far more negative impact than the 3
low profile, single story homes set farther back from the sidewalk cited by the applicant.

III. Parking
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
1. Give ratio of bicycle parking
2. Guest parking should be provided
Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted
Applicant Response:
Bike storage and repair has been added

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
Staff not supportive of reduced guest parking
Applicant Response:
Guest spaces conforms with similar properties
Number of guest spaces on similar properties is stated
Ride share has increased
Cross-parking agreements with commercial properties could be an option

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Since VPC denial the applicant has stated that they will reduce the number of units by 1 and
increase the guest parking by 2 making the total 6.




Page 437
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 3


REALITY:
x Parking on Maryland is prohibited and causes a safety hazard due to the bike lane
x Guest parking on similar properties was not accurately counted
x Guest parking on similar properties is inadequate and is an on-going concern of residents
living in those communities
x Reduction of 1 – 2 bedroom unit reduces the requirement by .5; 7.5 required
x Adding 2 guest spaces makes the total 6, still below the requirement

IV. Public Works – Trash Collection
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Trash collection needs more info e.g. impact on streetscape, will concrete pads be needed
Applicant Response:
Approached Zoning Staff about a technical appeal to allow trucks to backup more than 50 ft.
Will have 16 individual cans twice a week if appeal not approved

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
All comments from first review shall apply
Applicant Response:
Allows for 16 individual collection bins for trash and recycling

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

REALITY:
x 16 trash/recycling cans placed in the bike path starting the evening before collection and
ending, potentially, the day after collection is unsightly and is a safety hazard
x The City ordinance states that collection bins be placed at the curb, not on the sidewalk
(Exhibit E)
x No other multifamily housing developments with access to Maryland require residents to
place trash/recycling on the street or on the sidewalk
x Megan Sheets, Project Manager for the Public Works Department offered 2 solutions to
individual trash collection bins:
Variance for trash/recycling enclose in the landscape setback
Technical appeal to allow collection truck to back up more than 50 ft
She states:
“A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier for each resident instead of
wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse & another day recycle) to
Maryland.” (Exhibit F)




Page 438
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 439
EXHIBIT B

North side of Maryland
East Office Building:
11’ to wall
26.25’ to building

West Residential
Development:
37.75’ to wall
36.5’ to wall
Page 440

South side of Maryland
Right to Left
Apartment Building:
32.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
25.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
32’ to building
Note that the Single Family Residences directly across Maryland from the subject property are single story,
and set at angles providing extensive open space rather than a 35’ barricade looming within 17’ of the street.
EXHIBIT C


6348 N. 13th St
6502 N. 12th St (APN 161-12-205)
(APN 161-07-059) 13’ side walk to fence
28.5’ sidewalk to eave 22’ sidewalk to eave




Page 441




6502 N. 13th St
(APN 161-07-019)
4’ sidewalk to fence
27’ sidewalk to building
Side yard setback

6502 N. 12th St
(APN 161-07-059)
28.5’ sidewalk to eave
Side yard setback
Exhibit D

to account for the envisioned patio spaces.

Response: The project narrative has been updated to state a maximum lot coverage of forty-
six (46) percent based on net lot area. We are not proposing a minimum individual lot
coverage percentage at this point in time.

b. Minimum Building Setbacks: Please divide this section into perimeter setbacks and
individual lot setbacks (repeat comment from 1st review). For individual lots, specify what
is considered the front yard (internal facing).

Response: We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time.


i. General comment: Staff is still not supportive of such a reduced setback (10 feet)
along Maryland Avenue. Setbacks along this street average at 30 feet, with the closest
building (to the east of the subject site) at 20 feet from the property line.

Response: The proposed setback is compatible with other properties along Maryland
Ave. Specifically, the proposed development would be setback further than the
buildings located at 6348 N. 13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-12-205), 6502 N.
13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-07-019); and 6502 N. 12th St., Phoenix, 85014
(APN: 161-06-059); therefore, the proposed setback mirrors the setback enjoyed by
other developments in the area. Moreover, the proposed development features more
advance architectural than the properties listed above; therefore, the impact to
Maryland Avenue will not be as substantial. Additionally, there is a minimum of 6’-
6” of further landscaped zone to the south of our property line before the sidewalk
which provides additional buffer to the property from the street.

Further, the proposed setback allows the development to maximize its architectural
potential. The setback along Maryland Avenue will feature lush landscaping, an
‘open fence’ (as described in the narrative, and a central bench area.

ii. Side Setbacks: Please be advised that no portion of the building may overhang
above utility easements. Keep this in mind when planning utilities on the site.

Response: Understood. We appreciate the comment.

c. Landscape Setbacks:
i. Street Side: Staff’s concern regarding an insufficient landscape setback along
Maryland Avenue remains.

Response: The closest unit to Maryland Ave. will be setback seventeen feet (17’)
minimum from the Maryland Ave. streetscape. The developers will maintain the area
south of their property line and north of the Maryland Ave. streetscape so that it
mirrors the Property’s landscape setback and does not fall into disrepair. Therefore,
the actual landscape setback will larger than actually represented.

Further, the Property’s landscape setback will feature a community bench and a water


Page 442
Exhibit E

11:54 AM (5
minutes ago)
Eric MacDonald
to me

Hi Larry,

In order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations, containers
should not be placed on the sidewalk. Containers should be placed right up against the
sidewalk or curb and spaced four feet apart from each other (trash container 4 feet from
recycle container). I know this one can be a little confusing, hopefully this clears things
up for you.

If you have any other questions or concerns let me know. If not have a wonderful day!




Page 443
Exhibit F




From: Megan Sheets
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Z-69-20
To: Larry Whitesell
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina


Larry,

The site plan states the 16 townhome units will be lot sales, therefore the City will be
collecting for both refuse and recycle. A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier
for each resident instead of wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse &
another day recycle) to Maryland. Enclosures cannot be located in the landscape
setback (without a variance) which makes it difficult to place towards the front where a
truck could possibly collect and back up.

If you take the variance route, send me a revised site plan showing the enclosure
location so I can approve. Sixteen units will require one 4 cy bin for refuse and one 4 cy
bin for recycle. Attached is our infill enclosure that could be used for this
community. See figure G.


Megan Sheets
Project Manager
Public Works Department
Working remotely
Cell: 602.896.7751




Page 444
Page 445
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 1


I. Lot Coverage
1st Review – Zoning Staff
Lot coverage should not exceed 35% net
Status of patios being part of 100% lot coverage for individual lot sales
Applicant Response: Resubmittal shows a lot coverage of forty-six percent based on net area.

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
46% lot coverage is still a concern
100% lot coverage for individual lots still remains
Recommend maximum lot coverage for individual lots and minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
46% maximum lot coverage based on net lot area
Minimum individual lot coverage % is not being proposed at this point in time

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report
The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present to both the
east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling between those
permitted on the two adjacent properties.

REALITY
x The Staff Report is comparing what could have been built on adjacent properties per zoning
districts, not what was actually built. Actual developments have less density than maximum
allowable.
x “…at this point in time.” is an opportunity for the applicant to convert to individual lot sales In
the future. In fact, the Site Plan, pg 7, Proposed Development – PUD
“LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES” (Exhibit A)

II. Building Setbacks
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Maximum Building Setbacks – Divide into perimeter and individual lots
Consider a minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time
Yards have varying depth with 10' setback as minimum
nd
2 Review – Zoning Staff
Staff still not supportive of 10' setback along Maryland. Average setback on Maryland is 30';
closest building (east) is 20' from property line
Applicant Response:
x Setback is more than 3 properties, property address provided as evidence
x More advanced architecture than the properties listed above; the impact to Maryland Avenue
will not be as substantial
x 6'6" more between property line and sidewalk
x Open fence, lush landscape and bench

Page 446
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 2


rd
3 Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report – This concern is not addressed

VPC Presentation
In rebuttal to my evidence that the 3 properties cited as examples of having closer setbacks, Mr.
Oliver stated that he was referring to Landscape setbacks.

REALITY:
x Setbacks on properties on the east, west and south side of the proposed development are
farther from the sidewalk. (Exhibit B)
x The buildings of the properties cited by the applicant are farther from the sidewalk than the
proposed development. (Exhibit C)
x 2 of the 3 properties cited by the applicant are side yard set-backs. The property addresses
are not on Maryland.
x The written document in which Mr. Oliver cited the 3 properties as having less setbacks is
under Building Setbacks, not the section on Landscape setbacks. (Exhibit D)
x The proposed development parallels Maryland with a building wall of of approximately 80
linear feet, 32 feet high within 17’ of the sidewalk. This is far more negative impact than the 3
low profile, single story homes set farther back from the sidewalk cited by the applicant.

III. Parking
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
1. Give ratio of bicycle parking
2. Guest parking should be provided
Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted
Applicant Response:
Bike storage and repair has been added

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
Staff not supportive of reduced guest parking
Applicant Response:
Guest spaces conforms with similar properties
Number of guest spaces on similar properties is stated
Ride share has increased
Cross-parking agreements with commercial properties could be an option

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Since VPC denial the applicant has stated that they will reduce the number of units by 1 and
increase the guest parking by 2 making the total 6.




Page 447
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 3


REALITY:
x Parking on Maryland is prohibited and causes a safety hazard due to the bike lane
x Guest parking on similar properties was not accurately counted
x Guest parking on similar properties is inadequate and is an on-going concern of residents
living in those communities
x Reduction of 1 – 2 bedroom unit reduces the requirement by .5; 7.5 required
x Adding 2 guest spaces makes the total 6, still below the requirement

IV. Public Works – Trash Collection
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Trash collection needs more info e.g. impact on streetscape, will concrete pads be needed
Applicant Response:
Approached Zoning Staff about a technical appeal to allow trucks to backup more than 50 ft.
Will have 16 individual cans twice a week if appeal not approved

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
All comments from first review shall apply
Applicant Response:
Allows for 16 individual collection bins for trash and recycling

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

REALITY:
x 16 trash/recycling cans placed in the bike path starting the evening before collection and
ending, potentially, the day after collection is unsightly and is a safety hazard
x The City ordinance states that collection bins be placed at the curb, not on the sidewalk
(Exhibit E)
x No other multifamily housing developments with access to Maryland require residents to
place trash/recycling on the street or on the sidewalk
x Megan Sheets, Project Manager for the Public Works Department offered 2 solutions to
individual trash collection bins:
Variance for trash/recycling enclose in the landscape setback
Technical appeal to allow collection truck to back up more than 50 ft
She states:
“A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier for each resident instead of
wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse & another day recycle) to
Maryland.” (Exhibit F)




Page 448
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 449
EXHIBIT B

North side of Maryland
East Office Building:
11’ to wall
26.25’ to building

West Residential
Development:
37.75’ to wall
36.5’ to wall
Page 450

South side of Maryland
Right to Left
Apartment Building:
32.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
25.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
32’ to building
Note that the Single Family Residences directly across Maryland from the subject property are single story,
and set at angles providing extensive open space rather than a 35’ barricade looming within 17’ of the street.
EXHIBIT C


6348 N. 13th St
6502 N. 12th St (APN 161-12-205)
(APN 161-07-059) 13’ side walk to fence
28.5’ sidewalk to eave 22’ sidewalk to eave




Page 451




6502 N. 13th St
(APN 161-07-019)
4’ sidewalk to fence
27’ sidewalk to building
Side yard setback

6502 N. 12th St
(APN 161-07-059)
28.5’ sidewalk to eave
Side yard setback
Exhibit D

to account for the envisioned patio spaces.

Response: The project narrative has been updated to state a maximum lot coverage of forty-
six (46) percent based on net lot area. We are not proposing a minimum individual lot
coverage percentage at this point in time.

b. Minimum Building Setbacks: Please divide this section into perimeter setbacks and
individual lot setbacks (repeat comment from 1st review). For individual lots, specify what
is considered the front yard (internal facing).

Response: We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time.


i. General comment: Staff is still not supportive of such a reduced setback (10 feet)
along Maryland Avenue. Setbacks along this street average at 30 feet, with the closest
building (to the east of the subject site) at 20 feet from the property line.

Response: The proposed setback is compatible with other properties along Maryland
Ave. Specifically, the proposed development would be setback further than the
buildings located at 6348 N. 13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-12-205), 6502 N.
13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-07-019); and 6502 N. 12th St., Phoenix, 85014
(APN: 161-06-059); therefore, the proposed setback mirrors the setback enjoyed by
other developments in the area. Moreover, the proposed development features more
advance architectural than the properties listed above; therefore, the impact to
Maryland Avenue will not be as substantial. Additionally, there is a minimum of 6’-
6” of further landscaped zone to the south of our property line before the sidewalk
which provides additional buffer to the property from the street.

Further, the proposed setback allows the development to maximize its architectural
potential. The setback along Maryland Avenue will feature lush landscaping, an
‘open fence’ (as described in the narrative, and a central bench area.

ii. Side Setbacks: Please be advised that no portion of the building may overhang
above utility easements. Keep this in mind when planning utilities on the site.

Response: Understood. We appreciate the comment.

c. Landscape Setbacks:
i. Street Side: Staff’s concern regarding an insufficient landscape setback along
Maryland Avenue remains.

Response: The closest unit to Maryland Ave. will be setback seventeen feet (17’)
minimum from the Maryland Ave. streetscape. The developers will maintain the area
south of their property line and north of the Maryland Ave. streetscape so that it
mirrors the Property’s landscape setback and does not fall into disrepair. Therefore,
the actual landscape setback will larger than actually represented.

Further, the Property’s landscape setback will feature a community bench and a water


Page 452
Exhibit E

11:54 AM (5
minutes ago)
Eric MacDonald
to me

Hi Larry,

In order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations, containers
should not be placed on the sidewalk. Containers should be placed right up against the
sidewalk or curb and spaced four feet apart from each other (trash container 4 feet from
recycle container). I know this one can be a little confusing, hopefully this clears things
up for you.

If you have any other questions or concerns let me know. If not have a wonderful day!




Page 453
Exhibit F




From: Megan Sheets
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Z-69-20
To: Larry Whitesell
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina


Larry,

The site plan states the 16 townhome units will be lot sales, therefore the City will be
collecting for both refuse and recycle. A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier
for each resident instead of wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse &
another day recycle) to Maryland. Enclosures cannot be located in the landscape
setback (without a variance) which makes it difficult to place towards the front where a
truck could possibly collect and back up.

If you take the variance route, send me a revised site plan showing the enclosure
location so I can approve. Sixteen units will require one 4 cy bin for refuse and one 4 cy
bin for recycle. Attached is our infill enclosure that could be used for this
community. See figure G.


Megan Sheets
Project Manager
Public Works Department
Working remotely
Cell: 602.896.7751




Page 454
Page 455
Racelle Escolar

From: William Reimers
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (AUTEM Row PUD)



Tothecommittee

Thisdevelopmentshouldnotbeapprovedinitscurrentstate.Myfamilyfrequentlywalks,ridesandrunsinfrontofthe
lot.Theprospectofdozensoftrashcontainersandmorestreetparkingisnotsafe.Itwouldbemuchbetterforthe
developertoadjustforthetrashandparkingneedsoftheirresidentsashasbeenrecommendedbymanypeopleand
groupsinourarea.Thankyouforprotectingourfamiliesandqualityoflife.

Regards,
WillReimers
6503N14thPl,Phoenix,AZ85014






Page1 456
Hello, My name is Dan Trozzi. I live at 6746 N. 12th Way, Phoenix, AZ 85014. I
have lived in this neighborhood for 39 years and I am the president of Squaw Peak
Heights Neighborhood Association.
Over the years I have seen many changes in this neighborhood. Mostly good. As
the neighborhood matures, we (my neighbors and I) have worked for positive,
compatible changes, while trying to preserve its original character.
I am not opposed to this development but there are several significant issues that
affect the livability, walkability and safety for this neighborhood. Issues that mean
a lot to this neighborhood and to the City of Phoenix.
Guest parking has been a critical issue since Neighborhood Leaders met with the
developers on March 4, during which this was addressed. This is their first multi-
unit project and oversights were apparent. It was obvious to all Neighborhood
Leaders that 4 guest spaces are acutely inadequate. Suggestions to solve this
dilemma were made at this meeting. However, there has been little credible
response. Disregard for the needs of our neighborhood to provide guest parking
and trash removal on-site has continued.

Overflow guests parking will end up parking on Maryland Ave.
As cautioned in the 1st Review of May 28 from City Planning, quote, “Maryland
has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted.” In fact, Maryland has a
bike lane on both sides of the street. It’s a major bike path for the City. This is not
an option. In fact, the only response by the developer to the no parking caution in
the 1st Review was that “bike storage and repair had been added,” completely
unrelated, no response to the no parking caution was submitted. Not addressing
this to the full extent needed has continued.

Parking is prohibited on bike lanes. Maryland has two bike lanes. Logically, to
preserve the treasured atmosphere on Maryland enjoyed by walkers as well, the
proposed development should be self-contained as other communities are. Parking
in bike lanes endangers recreational users and passing drivers. It creates
opportunities for accidents. As suggested March 4, a reduction in the number of
units would resolve these issues, ideally two to accommodate more guest parking
and an enclosed commercial trash pickup area. We know this can be done. Autem
would be a self-contained community like the others. Anything less will be unsafe
and unsightly. This was suggested as early as March 4 at the meeting with the
developers. It is the only solution that makes sense for everyone.




Page 457
The 2nd Review of June 30 stated: “Staff is not supportive of the proposed
reduction in required guest spaces.” The developer response contained percentages
of guest spaces at other communities in support of the planned four. One example
was for adjacent Maryland Village East stating 5 guest spaces for 18
units. Actually, they have 7 and comments from this community are that 7 are not
enough, which decidedly supports the need for more than 4 at the proposed
development. Also, the use of ride sharing suggested by the developer as an option
cannot be predicted nor assumed as a substitute for lack of guest spaces.

The 3rd Review of August 20 contained no reference to the guest parking issue.

The reality is all communities along Maryland are self-contained, providing guest
parking and on-site trash pickup. This is why Maryland has a clean and inviting
appearance with a reputation as one of the loveliest streets in Central Phoenix. Just
one community like Autem passing off its own responsibilities for parking and
trash to the surrounding neighborhood would have a huge damaging impact on all
of Maryland. Many emails of deep concern from the public on these issues have
been sent to the Zoning staff.

We have advocated for two units to be removed that allows for the trash and
recycling containers to be properly stored and to have an adequate number of guest
parking spots. The developer has said it would reduce one unit. This still does not
resolve the problem of bin storage and adequate guest parking spots.
We are offering a Solution: If this development deleted 1 unit on the east and 1
unit on the west. It would provide:
1. More compatible setbacks with current neighborhood properties
2. Reduces lot coverage more in line with the rest of Maryland Ave.
3. Eliminates 1 guest parking space required (14 2/bd units x .5 = 7)
4. Makes space for 3 additional guest parking spaces that meets the requirement
5. And Provides space for centralized enclosure for refuse/recycling bins
RETURN OF INVESTMENT IS THE SAME PROFIT MARGIN WITH 14 OR
16 UNITS
Construction cost/unit: 1750 sq ft / $550K = $320 sq ft / 2 = $157 sq ft
16 Units Construction cost: $157/sq ft X 1750 sq ft = $274,750 X 16 Units = $4.4
M ( rounded)




Page 458
Revenue: 16 Units X $550 K = $8.8 M (2 X ROI)
14 Units
Construction cost: $157/ sq ft X 1750 sq ft = $274, 750 X 14 = $3.85 M
Revenue: 14 units X $550 K = $7.7 M (2X ROI)
Also,
.5 guest parking space is required for every 2 bedroom unit.
16 units is 8 spaces; 4 spaces provided on current plan
15 units is 7.5 spaces. Eliminating 1 unit makes room for 2 spaces.
So the revised plan would be 6 spaces, 1.5 short.
Eliminating 1 more unit would reduce the requirement to 7 spaces and make room
for 2 more spaces, bringing the total to 8 spaces, 1 more than required. That's
good!

A Camelback East Village Planning Committee member had concerns that the
developer mentioned that guests could find spaces on commercial lots in the area.
This is not acceptable to the neighborhood or I am sure to the commercial
properties. Guests could also turn to use guest parking spots at neighboring
complexes.
This small change, reducing one more unit, provides a simple, easy path for
compliance and acceptance by the neighborhood.
Thank you




Page 459
Racelle Escolar

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Z-69-20-6 Autem Row PUD



DearChairmanandPlanningCommissionMembers:

Guest parking has been a critical issue since meeting with the two developers of this project on March 4 of this
year, during which the lack of guest parking was addressed. This is the first multi-unit project for these
developers and oversights were apparent. It was obvious to all attending Neighborhood Leaders that 4 guest
spaces for 16 units would be acutely inadequate. Actually, only 3 spaces would be fully available as one would
be reserved with the required disabled designation. The required guest spaces are 8 for 16 units. 

Suggestions to solve this dilemma, discussed below, were made early on at this meeting. However, there was
no credible response to follow until after the Camelback East Village Planning Committee decision to not
approve this application on October 5, a vote of 8-3. Disregard for the needs of our neighborhood to provide
adequate guest parking continued until then and still continues for on-site trash removal. As for this, the plan
for 32 unsightly and unhealthy trash bins lined up over two days on Maryland Ave where none now exist
continues. It’s one of the attractive features of Maryland, no trash bins. 


Unit reduction was presented to the developers at our March meeting to resolve the guest parking and trash
removal deficiencies but was resoundingly rejected and continued to be at neighborhood meetings. Removing
two units would add more parking and allow space for an on-site, enclosed trash containment and removal
area, problems solved. Autem would be self-contained as other communities on Maryland are, problem
solved. Following the Oct 5 Camelback Committee meeting, the developers finally offered to remove one unit
to provide two more guest spaces, period. This would mean 6 guest parking spaces, 5 for full use. Six is still
not the required number nor is it adequate. No updated site plan has yet to be submitted to reflect this
change. Removing two units would still be required to meet neighborhood needs. 

The parking issue is - where will drivers go to park when the available spaces that are planned are full? Not on
Maryland!

Ascautionedinthe1st Review of May 28 from City Planning, quote,“Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street
parking may be permitted.” In fact, Maryland has a bike lane on each side of the street as it is a major bike
path from the Dreamy Draw area to the west side of Phoenix. The very limited timed parking allowed by signs
is on a very short section of Maryland and constantly abused with illegally parked cars. Parking here is not an
option! Except for mention at the June 2 neighborhood meeting of a possible lease of 4 spaces at the adjacent
commercial building, a temporary measure at best fraught with problems, the guest parking overflow issue has
not been addressed at all except for reference by the legal representative that drivers will be creative and use
nearby commercial and business lots. Really?!?

In fact, the only response by the developer to the no parking caution in the 1st Review was that “bike storage
and repair had been added,” completely unrelated. There was no response to the no parking caution. Again,
this critical issue has yet to be addressed. The property is very small, under .90 acre. The question is, where
will drivers go to park, whether visiting or on business, when the spaces, whether 3 or 5, are taken, which will
be a common occurrence with so few planned. One need only ask the other nearby communities how often
their spaces are used. 

The2nd Review of June 30 from staff rightly stated: “Staff is not supportive of the proposed reduction in required
guest spaces.” The response received contained percentages of guest spaces in relation to units at other
communities in support of the planned four. The adjacent Maryland Village East was quoted with 5 guest
Page1 460
spaces for 18 units. Actually, they have 7 and comments from this community are that 7 are not enough,
which decidedly supports the need for more spaces at the proposed development. The use of ride sharing
suggested by the developer or bicycles as options cannot be predicted nor assumed as substitutes for lack of
guest spaces. 

The 3rd Review of August 20 contained no reference to the guest parking issue.

TherealityisallcommunitiesalongMarylandareselfͲcontained,providingtrash pickup and adequate guest spaces
on-site. This is why Maryland has a clean and inviting appearance with a reputation as one of the loveliest
streets in Central Phoenix. Just one community like Autem pushing its own on-site responsibilities for parking
and trash onto the surrounding neighborhood would have a huge negative impact on all of Maryland. It’s
located near the entrance to Maryland from 16th St. and what happens there would negatively set the tone for
the entire stretch of Maryland to 12th St. We are very proud of our street and do what we can to maintain its
cleanliness and attractiveness. What this project offers as planned would simply degrade the neighborhood
we value. 

Besides meeting with the developers, many emails of deep concern from various communities and residents
were sent to the Zoning staff. Other communities were built before the current parking ordinance and grand-
fathered in when revised, some granted variances. This development will not be grand-fathered in and will
have .50 factor for 16 units in place, 8 guest spaces. 

Parkingisprohibitedonbikelanes.Marylandhastwobikelanes.Again,wherewillpeoplepark?Logically,topreserve
thetreasuredatmospherealongMarylandenjoyedbyresidentsandthemanywhobike,walkandrunalongit,the
proposedprojectmustbeselfͲcontained.Allotherscommunitiesare.

MarylandhasbeencitedasanoparkingpermittedstreetbyCityPlanning.Parkinginbikelanesisnotanoption,
endangeringrecreationalusersandpassingdrivers.TurningontoMarylandfromourcommunitiesisanotherhazardas
parkedcarswouldblockourview,forcingustoinchout,makingturnsverydangerous.Wehaveexperiencedthiswith
illegallyparkedcars.

Areductioninthenumberofunitsbytwowouldresolvebothparkingandtrashbinissuesandgreatlyalleviatethe
alarmingconcernsofMarylandcommunities.Itwouldprovidespaceforadditionalguestparkingandanenclosed
commercialtrashenclosure.AutemwouldthenbeaselfͲcontainedcommunityliketheothersthatgiveMarylandAve
itsenviableuniquenessthatattractsbuyers.Thisresultwewouldwelcome.Anything less will be unsafe and
unsightly, negatively impacting our neighborhood significantly. 

Unit reduction was suggested as early as March 4 at our meeting with the developers. It is time for the
developers to take part with concern for the welfare of the neighborhood they wish to enter rather than disrupt
it with no regard to the needs of the existing neighborhood. Reducing this project by two units to create a self-
contained development is the only solution that will provide what is needed to result in a harmonious
neighborhood. It is what makes sense. 


Sincerely,

Mary Ann Pikulas, President and Neighborhood Leader
Madison Groves Manor (Maryland Ave & 14th Place)
602-930-3004






Page2 461
Racelle Escolar

From: Mary Crozier
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:54 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6



DearPlanningCommissionMembers:

IfrequentlybikedownMarylandAvenueandamconstantlyfacedwithillegalparkingintheCityofPhoenixpublicbike
lanes,especiallyneartheproposedPUDsubjectsite.Itismyopinionthatmanyofthehigherdensitypropertiesdonot
haveadequateparking.Asaresult,abicyclistmustnavigatethroughspeedingtrafficonMaryland.WhyhaveNo
ParkingZonesifnooneisgoingtoenforcethat?

Theadditionofthisproposedprojectwilladdtotheexistingcongestion.Andtohearthatthedeveloperhasnot
providedforonͲsitegarbagecollectionisludicrous!Sixteengarbagecansinthebikelanestwiceaweek.Thatmeans
whenpeopledonotmovetheircansthebikelaneswillbefilledwithobstaclesfordays.

Lastly,greattime,thoughtandenergywasputintoourGeneralPlan.TheGeneralPlanstatesthemaximumnumberof
unitsatthislocationis14.Whywouldanyoneapprovemoreunitswithoutadequategarbagecollectionandparking?
ThePUDconceptwasdevelopedtocreateasuperiorproduct,nottobeaconvenienttoolforadevelopertomakemore
moneyandprovideaninferiorproject.

Theseissueswilldiminishthepropertyrightsoftheadjacentneighborhoodandforthegeneralpublicwhowanttouse
thebikepathsinasafeandreasonablemanner.

Iamnotopposedtonewdevelopmentatthissite,andwouldfullysupport14units,moreparkingandonͲsitegarbage
collection.Also,IdobelievecreatingaPUDonlessthananacreisnotthespiritandintentionofwhyaPUDwas
created.Someoneisclearlytakingadvantageofthesystemattheexpenseofothers.

Sincerely,

MaryL.Crozier




Page1 462
Racelle Escolar

From: Sarah Entz
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Linda Richards
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) - Comments



Thankyouforreadingmycommentsforthisproject.Therearethreelargeissueswiththeproposeddevelopment:

1.Trashcans.Theyareproposingputting30trashcansinthebikelane,orworsethesidewalk,multipletimesaweek.
Thishasbeenrepeatedlypointedtoasanissueandnosolutionhasbeenprovided.Theystatetheyhaverequesteda
variancefromtheCity,howeverthatwillnotbegrantedasthewastemanagementvehicleswillnotbackup,asitisa
safetyhazard.

2.SetbackfromMarylandAve.TheproposedsetbackisdrasticallynarrowerthantherestofMarylandproperties.This
isnotinlinewiththebeautificationofthespace.

3.Parking.Evenwiththeremovalofoneunittoincreasetheparkingtosixspaces,thisstillwillnotmeettheneedsof
theproperty.Thiswillresultinevenmorepeopleparkinginfrontofourneighbor'shomeswhichhasalreadycaused
issueamongstourcommunity.

Iamnotagainstdevelopmentintheneighborhood.Iamagainstanydevelopmentthatputsmultitudesoftrashcansand
carsinthebikelane.Isuggestgoingbacktothearchitecttoredesigntoallowfortheneededeightparkingspacesand
trashonpremises.

Thankyouagainforlistening.

Best,
SarahEntz
1530EMarylandAve,Phoenix,AZ85014
858Ͳ692Ͳ4744






Page1 463
Racelle Escolar

From: Kyle Paskey
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:59 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (AUTEM Row PUD)



Hello.

I’mwritingtoexpressmyobjectionstothispurposesdevelopment.

Iliveclosetothepurposedsiteandthisdevelopmentfarexceedswhatshouldbeconsidered.

Thedevelopershavebeennotbeenforthcomingorbeensupportiveofneighborsintheirmeetings.

Specificallytherearetoomanyunitspurposedforthesite,nowherenearsufficientguestparking,andnoplanfortrash
removalandrecyclingpickup.

IpurchasedmyhomeonMarylandAvenueasithasdesignatedbikelanes.Thoselanesarealreadyfilledwithparked
carsͲmostlyalreadyinviolationofposted(butrarelyenforced)daytimepostedparkingrestrictions.Addingnew
housingunitswilllikelyonlyaddtotheparkingissuesonMarylandAvenueandcontinuetoimpactthesafetyofthe
neighborhood.

I’mnotopposedtodevelopingthelotsinquestion,buttheissuesaboveshouldbeaddressedbeforeanyvoteto
approveoccurs.

Thankyouforyourconsiderationofmycomments.

KylePaskey
6504N14thPl,Phoenix,AZ85014
602Ͳ903Ͳ8179




Page1 464
Racelle Escolar

From: Janis & Ben Harris
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:19 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 Item #20



DearSir,

Weopposetheproposalfor16unitsat1536Ͳ1538EastMaryland.

Thedeveloperistryingtocrowdtoomanyunitsontothisproperty.Wewouldliketoeliminate2unitstoallowmore
guestparkingandallowspacefortrashpickup.

Pleaseopposethedeveloper’sproposal.

Thankyou,
JanisandBenHarris
516EastStellaLane
PhoenixAZ85012




Page1 465
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 5:08 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Development on Maryland Street

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing about my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recyling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland, will cause problems for
bikers and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic
lane, creating a horrible risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our
street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a
special classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus
residents possibly living there, each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on
Maryland this takes away the bike lane and blocks driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland.
It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the
developers to address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street.
This is truly scary when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,

KarolynBenger
Sentfrommyphone





Page 466
Page 467
February 3rd, 2021

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Support for City of Phoenix Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20


I have reviewed the development plans for the property west of the northwest corner of
16th St and Maryland Ave and I eagerly support the rezoning for the townhome
development. As neighbors to the development, our family does not believe that the
proposal will bring any negative impacts to the neighborhood, and feel that the
developer’s plans would be an asset to the community. Our community is known for its
beautiful diversity of architecture and design but we’ve recently been subjected to
historic demolitions in order to build cheap, tasteless gated off track homes that are an
embarrassment and do not serve the community. I’m elated that this proposed
development would be in line with the true design forward spirit of our neighborhood, as
well as provide a more community forward culture instead of further walling everyone off
from each other. For the good of our community, please support this rezoning case.


Miles Willis McDermott
Art Director of Moses Inc.
6530 North Place D’Valencia - Phoenix AZ 85014




Page 468
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ

Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
Benjamin Nesbeitt
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1407 E. Solano Drive, Phoenix AZ 85014
_________________________________
Address
2 November 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 469
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ




Page 470
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ

Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
3DXO+RZHOO
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

(DVW6RODQR'ULYH3KRHQL[$=
_________________________________
Address

_________________________________
Date




Page 471
        




November 2nd, 2021



Planning and Development Department 200 W. Washington Street, 2 nd Floor Phoenix,AZ 85003



Re: Support for City of Phoenix Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20



I am a long time resident in our neighborhood and am eager to support this rezoning case to
ultimately re-develop the property at 1536 E. Maryland Ave. As the city and our neighborhood
grow, we are in need of thoughtful communities exactly like this. In addition to adding much
needed single family residences in our neighborhood, this development adds significant character
and architectural integrity to our area. It is clear that this builder is going the extra mile to create
something special here, and I believe this is something fantastic for our community to stand
behind. This level of design and effort is something that our neighborhood should support as an
example of how communities should be developed throughout Phoenix.

Please support this rezoning.




      



N 7th St
 
Phoenix AZ 85014




Page 472
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
________________
Property Owner Signature

R. Alex Therien
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

6544 N. 13th Street, PHX 85014
_________________________________
Address

2 November 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 473
Attachment F




ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021
December 2, 2021
Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the staff recommended stipulations to
account for changes to the PUD development narrative, per the applicant’s request.

On October 5, 2021, the Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
request and recommended denial, noting the continued community opposition to the
case due to ongoing concerns regarding the proposed density, number of guest parking
spaces, and on-street waste collection. After the meeting, the applicant worked with the
community on modifications to the request to address these concerns and has
requested modifications to the PUD development narrative to accommodate the
changes made to the proposal.

The request was heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 2021, and was
continued to the December 2, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to allow the applicant
to work with the community on modifications to the development narrative and
conceptual site plan to address the following:

• Modify the development standards and site plan to provide street-facing
residential units along Maryland Avenue;
• Remove the front yard fence along Maryland Avenue to provide an open
entrance to the development;
• Remove the public seating area from the front of the development, and move the
bicycle repair station to the interior of the development.



Page 474
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021


The applicant revised the PUD narrative to incorporate the above modifications. Staff
recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021, as modified
by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2,
2021; City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
C. B. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF
UNITS TO 15.
D. C. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
E. D. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.
F. E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST
PARKING TO 0.40 0.46 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT
MINIMUM OF 6 7 GUEST PARKING SPACES.
G. F. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.
H. G. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH
TO REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE
LAYOUT AS PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
OCTOBER 28, 2021. IN EXHIBIT 9.
I. H. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD
ZONING COLUMN.
J. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE
REFERENCE TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

Page 475
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021


K. PAGE 38, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THIS EXHIBIT.
I. PAGE 4, EXHIBITS: DELETE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 10.
2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP.


Exhibits
Autem Row PUD development narrative date stamped December 2, 2021




Page 476
Attachment G


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 2, 2021

ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) (Continued from 11/4/2021)
Location: Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and
Maryland Avenue
From: R-O
To: PUD
Acreage: 0.89
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: AUTEM Development
Owner: East Maryland, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco, PA

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report and modifications to
Stipulation Nos. 1.f and 1.j, additional stipulations to modify Exhibits 6 and 8 in the PUD
Narrative to be consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative, and the
standard Proposition 207 waiver of claims stipulation.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 5/4/2021 Information only.
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 8-3 (1 abstained).

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

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve Z-69-20-6, per the
Addendum B Staff Report with the modified and additional stipulations as read into the record,
with the added modification that the developer shall provide onsite trash and recycling pickup,
modify the stoops and stairs in the two southern units to face Maryland, and to stay in general
conformance within the site plan, so the seven parking spots will remain.

Ms. Racelle Escolar (staff) stated that the modification to add the stoop and stairways facing
Maryland is not necessary because there is a provision in the revised narrative that requires the
southernmost end units will incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing so as to be
orientated towards Maryland Avenue. There is also a requirement in the revised narrative that
they adhere to the design intent, depicted in Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 is one that needs to be replaced
in the narrative to be consistent with the rendering shown on the cover.

Commissioner Johnson stated that the stairs and stoops face each. They face the opposite
units instead of Maryland. That is what he was trying to change.

Ms. Escolar confirmed that Commissioner Johnson wanted the stairways to also face Maryland.

Commissioner Johnson asked if he had to address the parking spot.


Page 477
Ms. Escolar stated that it was already addressed in the Addendum because there is a
stipulation that requires seven spaces. She stated that they could modify Stipulation No. 6. to
change the onsite collection, as he stated earlier, that the developer shall provide onsite trash
and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. In order to
incorporate the stoop and stairs facing Maryland, they would add a stipulation to update page
12 of the narrative, to modify the stoop and stairways to face Maryland Avenue. They could add
a stipulation to change that provision on page 12.

Ms. Escolar asked for confirmation if the motion is to approve, per the Addendum B Staff Report
with the modified and additional stipulations that were read into the record; and a stipulation to
modify page 12 of the narrative, the provision that requires the southernmost units to
incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland, and also the
stoops and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland; and a change to Stipulation No. 6 to require
onsite trash and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Commission Johnson confirmed that the motion was correct.

Commission Gorraiz seconded the motion.

Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-69-20-6, per the
Addendum B Staff Report with the modified and additional stipulations that were read into the
record; and a stipulation to modify page 12 of the narrative, the provision that requires the
southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing to be oriented towards
Maryland, and also the stoops and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland; and a change to
Stipulation No. 6 to require onsite trash and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 8-1 (Perez)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed PUD will provide a high quality multifamily residential development which
will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

2. The site is appropriately situated in close proximity to the State Route 51 freeway to the
east and major commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.

3. The PUD will provide significant streetscape improvements along Maryland Avenue,
including robust tree shade coverage, public pedestrian seating, and bicycle amenities.




Page 478
Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021;

B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

C. B. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO
15.

D. C. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

E. D. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.

F. E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST PARKING
TO 0.40 0.46 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT MINIMUM OF 6
7 GUEST PARKING SPACES.

G. F. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.

H. G. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH TO
REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE LAYOUT AS
PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021. IN
EXHIBIT 9.

I. H. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD ZONING
COLUMN.

J. I. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE SITE
PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

K. PAGE 12, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THIS EXHIBIT.

I.J. PAGE 4, EXHIBITS: DELETE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 10.



Page 479
K. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.: MODIFY THE PROVISION
THAT REQUIRES THE SOUTHERNMOST UNITS TO INCORPORATE
STREET-FACING FRONT DOORS AND GLAZING TO BE ORIENTED
TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE, AND ALSO THE STOOPS AND STAIRS
TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE.

L. PAGE 28: REVISE EXHIBIT 6 (STREETSIDE SCALE CONTEXT EXHIBIT) TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

M. PAGES 33-34: REVISE EXHIBIT 8 (CONCEPTUAL RENDERING) TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of Maryland
Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a meeting to discuss
the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with instruction to
forward the study to the Street Transportation Department, Development Coordination
Section.

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

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

6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE METHODS
OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR PROVIDE ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP, AS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENTS.

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

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 480
Attachment H - Revised




Page 481
1/5/2022




Page 482
Attachment I



Chairwoman Shank
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Re: Support for Rezoning Request - Application No.: Z-43-21
4048 N. 40th Pl., Phoenix, Arizona 85018


Chairwoman Shank and Planning Commissioners:

My name is Geoff Edlund and I own the three properties located at 3943, 3937 and 3933 E
Monterosa St under the name Chapter 2, LLC.. I support the rezoning request to allow the property located
at 4048 N. 40th Pl., Phoenix, Arizona 85018 to be rezoned from Rl-6 to R-O. The Applicant has explained
their rezoning request in great detail and it is my understanding that their rezoning request is necessary in
order to allow their already existing building to expand. In my opinion, approval of their rezoning request
will not negatively impact the surrounding area but will instead allow a welcomed business to expand their
footprint. I have seen much of Studio Ma's design work and I have no doubt their expansion will be
tastefully done and add value to the neighborhood.

In short, I fully support the Applicant's rezoning request because the request will neither harm nor
negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit this letter to express my support.



Sincerely,




Property Owner Signature

DfZo,-F EoLuNO
Property Owner Name (print)

j I / 1 / 2-c 'Z-J
Date




Page 483
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
Justin Novak
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)
6114 n. 8th street
_________________________________
Address

11/02/2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 484
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
John Dimmel
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1019 E. Georgia Ave
_________________________________
Address
November 2, 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 485
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature

Galina Mihaleva
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1435 E. Solano Drive, Phoenix, AZ, B5014
_________________________________
Address

11.04.2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 486

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

102 item(s)