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 9
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: January 26, 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:

Camelback East Village Planning Committee

Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following for appointment:

Adiba Jurayeva
Ms. Jurayeva is an attorney at AdibA Group and a resident of District 6. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

Central City Village Planning Committee

Councilmember Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:

Ali Nervis
Mr. Nervis is the owner of Grassrootz Bookstore and a resident of District 8. He fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

Desert View Village Planning Committee

I and Councilman Jim Waring recommend the following for appointment:

Cynthia Dean
Ms. Dean is the Vice President of JTD Sells AZ and a resident of District 4. She fills a
vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.




Page 10
Human Relations Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Miriam Weisman
Ms. Weisman is a former educator and anti-bias facilitator and a resident of District 4.
She fills a vacancy for a term to expire June 30, 2024.

Laveen Village Planning Committee

Councilmember Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:

JoAnne Jensen
Ms. Jensen is retired and a resident of District 8. She fills a vacancy to expire
November 19, 2023.

Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Patrick Fitzhugh
Mr. Fitzhugh is the Regional Site Management Director at USAA. He fills a Business
vacancy for a partial term to expire June 30, 2022.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee

Councilmember Carlos Garcia recommends the following for appointment:

Tremikus Muhammad
Mr. Muhammad is the Executive Director of Phoenix Local Organizing Committee and a
resident of District 4. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.




Page 11



Report

Liquor License - Hutch Kitchen & Cocktails

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 172255.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2603 N. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2 HRI TOD-1
Council District: 4

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 31, 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 12

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.

Crown Public House (Series 12)
333 E. Jefferson St., Phoenix
Calls for police service: 350
Liquor license violations: In Aug. 2020, a fine of $1,500 was paid for failure to derive 40
percent of income from food.

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 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 legal age the option of ordering an
adult beverage with they choose to have one with their meal.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Hutch Kitchen & Cocktails
Liquor License Map - Hutch Kitchen & Cocktails

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




Page 13
Liquor License Data: HUTCH KITCHEN & COCKTAILS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 7 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 1

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4

Hotel 11 1 1

Restaurant 12 46 12

Club 14 1 1


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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 36

Total Violations 96 59




Page 14
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1105013 824 16 % 17 % 40 %

1105022 1216 28 % 19 % 23 %

1117004 1227 75 % 20 % 21 %

1118001 742 44 % 28 % 5%

1118002 1030 67 % 9% 17 %

1118003 996 65 % 15 % 4%

1118004 671 62 % 6% 6%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 15
Liquor License Map: HUTCH KITCHEN & COCKTAILS
2603 N CENTRAL AVE




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


City Clerk Department
Page 16



Report

Liquor License - L & S Ranch Market

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170931.

Summary

Applicant
Lori Scott, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2750 W. Indian School Road
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 may currently operate with an interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 28, 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 17

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.

Laveen Smoke Shop #6 (Series 10)
4325 S. 48th St., Ste. 101, Tempe
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 a responsible business owner in the Phoenix area since 2006. I have held a
liquor licenses previously for a restaurant, and other convenience store.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This will allow the community a one stop shop to purchase beer or wine, cigarettes,
food, beverages, or household items."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - L & S Ranch Market
Liquor License Map - L & S Ranch Market

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




Page 18
Liquor License Data: L & S RANCH MARKET
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 3 1

Bar 6 4 0

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 16 7

Restaurant 12 3 2


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 171.57 224.62

Violent Crimes 9.21 64.03 100.42

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 191

Total Violations 95 282




Page 19
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1090012 3369 0% 11 % 59 %

1090033 1600 22 % 13 % 68 %

1090034 583 5% 26 % 49 %

1091012 2067 85 % 10 % 30 %

1091022 2966 78 % 14 % 50 %

1091023 1085 28 % 19 % 21 %

1169001 2535 66 % 12 % 50 %

1170002 1845 32 % 9% 34 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 20
Liquor License Map: L & S RANCH MARKET
2750 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD




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


City Clerk Department
Page 21



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Hermandad Del Senor De Los Milagros (Mesa,
AZ)

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

Summary

Applicant
Sofia Vasquez Diaz

Location
7610 W. Indian School Road
Council District: 5

Function
Dance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 11, 2022 - 9 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 500 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 22



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Saint Sava Serbian Orthodox Church

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

Summary

Applicant
George Momich

Location
4436 E. McKinley St.
Council District: 8

Function
Golf Tournament

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 23, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 200 attendees
Feb. 24, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 200 attendees
Feb. 25, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 2 a.m. / 300 attendees
Feb. 26, 2022 - 5 p.m. to 2 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 23



Report

Liquor License - The Rose Theatre

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174293.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
455 N. 3rd St., Ste. 1010
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 5, 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 24


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:
“The Rose Theatre will offer specialty and classic craft cocktails in a theatre setting.
Applicant would like to offer guest 21 and over the opportunity to enjoy alcoholic
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 - The Rose Theatre
Liquor License Map - The Rose Theatre

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




Page 25
Liquor License Data: THE ROSE THEATRE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 2 1

Wholesaler 4 1 0

Government 5 8 5

Bar 6 45 32

Beer and Wine Bar 7 14 11

Liquor Store 9 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 4

Hotel 11 8 5

Restaurant 12 91 63

Club 14 2 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 159.04 228.98

Violent Crimes 9.21 38.42 56.47

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



Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 74

Total Violations 96 124




Page 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1130001 1218 23 % 16 % 11 %

1130002 873 29 % 21 % 38 %

1131001 1015 7% 8% 28 %

1131002 1242 3% 7% 33 %

1132021 731 33 % 20 % 74 %

1132022 1257 47 % 29 % 55 %

1132031 1473 30 % 20 % 57 %

1140001 1831 25 % 20 % 47 %

1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 27
Liquor License Map: THE ROSE THEATRE
455 N 3RD ST




Ü
Date: 12/9/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 28



Report

Liquor License - El Bravo Mexican Food

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 07070710.

Summary

Applicant
Amparo Cruz, Agent

License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar

Location
8338 N. 7th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a beer and wine 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. 28, 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.




Page 29

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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I understand the rules to hold the liquor license and I have the capability to be at the
restaurant any-time of the day. I have worked in the restaurant for over 10 years and
my husband has worked for this restaurant over 30+ years.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“They will not have to travel to a bar or convienence store in order to obtain alcohol.
Additionally, patrons do not typically get inebriated in restaurants as compared to a
bar."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - El Bravo Mexican Food
Liquor License Map - El Bravo Mexican Food

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




Page 30
Liquor License Data: EL BRAVO MEXICAN FOOD
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 0

Bar 6 5 2

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 1

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 10 1

Restaurant 12 14 3


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 93.76 108.81

Violent Crimes 9.21 20.11 15.71

*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 73

Total Violations 96 126




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

1052002 1702 63 % 7% 23 %

1052003 1140 66 % 15 % 17 %

1053001 1959 84 % 11 % 9%

1053002 1704 34 % 25 % 42 %

1053003 1205 96 % 9% 0%

1062002 1751 97 % 6% 1%

1063003 1910 50 % 11 % 42 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 32
Liquor License Map: EL BRAVO MEXICAN FOOD
8338 N 7TH ST




Ü
Date: 12/1/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 33




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48261) (Items 8-22)
Ordinance S-48261 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.

8 Settlement of Claim(s) Nissan v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $48,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Nissan
v. City of Phoenix, 17-0472-004, AU, BI, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of bodily
injury and property damage claim arising from a motor vehicle accident on
Oct. 20, 2017 involving the Planning and Development Department.

9 Settlement of Claim(s) Moore v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $250,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Moore
v. City of Phoenix, 20-0208-001, AU, BI, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of bodily
injury and property damage claim arising from a motor vehicle accident on
Feb. 29, 2020 involving the Police Department.

10 Arizona Science Center
For $204,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 127032 for
the annual reimbursement of utilities for the Parks and Recreation
Department. The contract agreement states the City will reimburse the
Arizona Science Center for all utility payments each year. The agreement
allows for the Arizona Science Center to maintain and operate the center
on behalf of the City of Phoenix, providing science education to visitors.



Page 34

The science education provided by the Arizona Science Center provides
Phoenix residents and visitors with increased knowledge and
understanding of science among youth and adults alike.

11 Arizona State University
For $78,000.00 in payment authority for Contract 119092 for the annual
operating and maintenance fees for the Downtown Phoenix Civic Space
A.E. England Building, which is paid to Arizona Board of Regents on
behalf of Arizona State University, for the Parks and Recreation
Department.

12 WBCP, Inc.
For $35,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about Jan. 26, 2022 for a term of three years to conduct an Executive
Search for the Assistant Human Services Director for the Human
Resources Department. The executive search includes writing recruitment
marketing materials, advertising, conducting applicant searches,
identifying a diverse applicant pool, coordinating interviews, writing
questions, and facilitating offer and negotiations. The Human Resources
Department is conducting a Request for Qualifications.

13 N Harris Computer Corp
For $175,000.00 in additional payment authority through Dec. 31, 2023
for two years of annual maintenance costs for the iNovah cashiering
system for the Finance Department. The iNovah system is the centralized
cashiering system used to process payments for several City
departments. Annual maintenance covers software support for the iNovah
system, four daily batch exports, one real time interface, and the image
cache letter file which is used to electronically process check payments.

14 SAP America, Inc.
For $15,922.00 in payment authority to purchase Crystal Reports licenses
for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Department. This item is in
support of the Finance and City Clerk departments for the Talis and Tax
Mantra system. ITS has been migrating the Talis and Tax Mantra
application to a new supportable and secure hardware platform, and new
Crystal Reports licenses are required. The current version of Crystal
Reports is obsolete and unsupported. The Finance and City Clerk


Page 35

departments rely on Tax Mantra to manage all regulatory license services
for citizens and businesses. A new version will allow departments to
continue obtaining critical reports from the upgraded system.

15 Diamond Nets and Art Solutions
For $125,000.00 in payment authority to purchase specialty art services
for the Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture Department. The funds will be
used for fabrication and necessary replacement of the net of the "Her
Secret Is Patience" sculpture at Civic Space Park. The current net has
reached the end of its life cycle. Diamond Nets was the original producer
of the net when the percent-for-art sculpture was built in 2009. Art
Solutions is the qualified local contractor that has the experience and
expertise in art handling and monumental sculpture installation.

16 Children's Museum of Phoenix
For $500,000.00 in additional payment authority for Agreement 122766,
through June 30, 2026, for building maintenance and repair services, and
50 percent reimbursement of utilities and landscaping costs for the
Children's Museum of Phoenix located at 215 N. 7th Ave., for the Phoenix
Office of Arts and Culture.

17 Valley Youth Theatre
For $75,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 114612,
through Jan. 5, 2026, for 50 percent reimbursement of utilities and sewer
costs for the Valley Youth Theatre facility located at 525 N. 1st St., for the
Phoenix Office of Arts and Culture.

18 Maricopa County Air Quality and Environmental
Regulations
For $222,450.00 in annual payment authority for various mandated
regulatory fees and permits for the Public Works Department. The Public
Works Department manages fuel sites, Citywide fleet and facilities, open
and closed landfills, transfer stations, solid waste collections, and other
mandated entities that require various permits and fees to maintain
compliance with Maricopa County air quality and environmental health
regulations. The permits that Public Works maintains include Refuse
Hauler, Authority to Operate, Title V, Non-Title V, Recycle Variance,
permitted fuel burning equipment and permitted fuel dispensing.


Page 36


19 Carrier Fire & Security Americas Corporation dba
Carrier Fire & Security - MAStermind
For $27,993.00 in payment authority for MAStermind monitoring services
using proprietary software for Jan. 1, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023 for the
Public Works Department. MAStermind is used by the Police Central
Monitoring Station (CMS) to manage alarm services with support 24/7
throughout the Downtown Corridor. The software is required by CMS for
monitoring alarms and emergency services in City-owned buildings.

20 Managed Medical Review Organization, Inc.
For $50,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 144922, for
independent medical evaluations for the Retirement Office. The
Retirement Office is currently finalizing a new contract through the RFP
process. The number and complexity of applications submitted has
increased from previous years, requiring additional funds. Independent
medical evaluations are used when either the City of Phoenix Employees'
Retirement System (COPERS) Board, Disability Assessment Committee,
or the Local Police and Fire Retirement Boards (Local Boards) require
information to determine the eligibility of individuals for a disability
retirement. Further, State statute requires all public safety members who
have filed an application for disability retirement be referred for an
independent medical evaluation by a board certified, Arizona licensed
physician in order to determine if they meet the criteria listed in Arizona
Revised Statutes, section 38-859. Memorandum of Understanding
144978-0 is the agreement between the COPERS Board and the Locals
Boards that permits the Local Boards to use the COPERS contract.

21 WateReuse Association - Annual Payment Authority
For $13,000.00 in payment authority for membership renewal to the
WateReuse Association for the Water Services Department. Participation
in the WateReuse Association allows Water Services access to a variety
of research and information addressing drinking water, wastewater, water
reclamation, watershed quality, and storm water issues. The item was
approved by the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Innovation
Subcommittee on April 7, 2021.

22 Brentwood Executive Holdings, LLC dba Paradigm


Page 37

Marketplace
For $1,400,000.00 in payment authority for Brentwood Executive
Holdings, LLC dba Paradigm Marketplace, to purchase at-home
COVID-19 test kits. The kits will be distributed to Phoenix residents
through the City's ongoing community testing and vaccination efforts. The
addition of the at-home test kits will strengthen the City's ability to address
increased case counts and mitigate the impact of COVID-19 in the
community. Funding is available through the City's allocation of the
American Rescue Plan Act received from the U.S. Federal Government.




Page 38



Report

National Civic League's 2022 All-American City Award

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to apply for and, if
selected, accept the National Civic League's All-American City Award for 2022.

Summary
The National Civic League's All-American City Award has celebrated the best in
American civic innovation since 1949. The annual award recognizes communities that
create innovative solutions to pressing issues through inclusive civic engagement and
collaborations among residents, businesses, non-profit organizations and local
governments. Phoenix has been honored with this national recognition five times, in
2009, 1989, 1980, 1958 and 1950.

The 2022 All-American City Award, in partnership with the Campaign for Grade-Level
Reading, will recognize the resilience that communities across the country have shown
as people come together to respond to the learning and equity challenges brought on
by the COVID-19 pandemic. This year's theme is: Housing as a Platform for Early
School Success and Equitable Learning Recovery. The ceremony will be held virtually
July 18-22, 2022, during Grade Level Reading (GLR) Week.

This year's application focuses on innovative, inclusive, and data-driven efforts that
seek measurable improvement around one or more of the following focus areas:
· Digital equity (internet access, individual devices, technical assistance);
· Relational support (tutors, mentors, coaches);
· After school, summer and out-of-school learning opportunities;
· Transforming non-school places and spaces into learning-rich environments;
· Promoting school readiness, regular attendance and summer learning;
· Parents succeeding as essential partners in the healthy development and early
school success of their children; and
· Parents succeeding in their own journey toward sustainable self-sufficiency.

The offices of Innovation and Youth and Education are leading the process in
collaboration with City departments including Housing, Information Technology
Services, Human Services, Parks and Recreation, Library, among others. The team


Page 39

has begun conducting research and compiling data to inform the application process.
The next steps include working with staff members, community partners and residents
to focus on key, successful initiatives that have been implemented during the
pandemic. The final application is due March 1, 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters, Inger Erickson and the
Offices of Innovation and Youth and Education.




Page 40



Report

Legal Processing, Notary, and Related Services Requirements Contract - COOP
21-035 (A) (Ordinance S-48270)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve an adjustment to
Payment Ordinance S-47923 for Contract COOP 21-035 with First Legal Network,
LLC, Nationwide Legal Services, LLC, and On the Run Legal Solutions, LLC to waive,
or grant an exception to, Phoenix City Code Section 42-18 (Chapter 42 Risk
Management, Contract Provisions; Indemnification Prohibition) and to authorize
inclusion of indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would
not be allowed for the Master Services Agreement. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. No additional funds are
needed.

Summary
The City of Phoenix requires contracts with multiple vendors who can provide legal
processing, notary, and related services in order to support all City Departments.
These services are used by various departments citywide, but primarily by the
Neighborhood Services Department and the Law Department to deliver a wide array of
legal notices to residents and businesses. Notices include construction violations,
investigations, court proceedings for both in-state and out-of-state addresses, public
notices, notary services, court filings, and complete processing services.

For a waiver of Phoenix City Code 42-18, the Master Agreement requires a limitation
of liability to the greater value of either $1,000,000 or three times the purchase price of
the specific materials and/or services giving rise to the claim.

Contract Term
This is a five-year contract beginning on or about Feb. 1, 2022.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on Sept. 8, 2021.

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



Page 41



Report

Technology Consulting Professional Service Agreement Requirements Contract
- Amendment (Ordinance S-48271)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 144634 with ASKREPLY, INC dba B2GNOW to extend the term and to allow
additional expenditures for the continued access of the online computer software
modules such as Concessions, Baseline System/Vendor Management, Contract
Compliance, Certification Management and the Online Application for the Equal
Opportunity Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $30,345.

Summary
The B2GNOW software system supports diversity-based contracting, certification and
outreach programs. The software is integrated with contracting processes utilized by
contractors, vendors and other City of Phoenix departments such as the Water
Services, Street Transportation, Public Transit, Aviation and Finance departments. The
B2GNOW system allows for conducting frequent updates to vendor's lists, which is
essential to the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration
assisted goal-setting requirements. The software provides for instant retrieval of
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Airport Concessionaire Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (ACDBE), and Small Business Enterprise (SBE) firms by North
American Industry Classification System codes and work descriptions, which are
essential for DBE and SBE goal setting. The Equal Opportunity and Public Transit
departments and Valley Metro will share the cost of this contract extension.

The requested service agreement is critical for multiple facility operations. The contract
extension will ensure continued services.

This one-year extension is needed while a new competitive solicitation is issued and a
new contract awarded.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Jan. 31, 2023.




Page 42

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $30,345 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $155,345. Funding is available in the Equal Opportunity and
Public Transit departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Jan. 11, 2017.

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




Page 43



Report

Acceptance and Dedication of Easements for Public Utility Purposes (Ordinance
S-48276)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate easements for public utility
purposes; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: Sandro Pinha and Gil Valdez, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 28432 N. 44th St.
File: FN 210055
Council District: 2

Easement (b)
Applicant: Tate Berger, Tate Burger and Jessica Hopper, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 8916 and 8918 N. 11th St.
File: FN 210103
Council District: 3

Easement (c)
Applicant: BFH Holdings, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 4724 S. 35th Ave.
File: FN 210111
Council District: 7

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


Page 44



Report

Acceptance of an Easement for Drainage Purposes (Ordinance S-48277)

Request for the City Council to accept an easement for drainage purposes; further
ordering the ordinance recorded.

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: VWP 48th ST OWNER, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Drainage
Location: 3232 S. 48th St.
File: FN 210119
Council District: 8

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




Page 45



Report

Sungard Availability Services (Ordinance S-48292)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an exemption from
the indemnification and liability provisions of section 42-18 of the City Code and allow
inclusion of indemnification and limitation of liability provisions in the agreement with
Sungard Availability Services, LP and Sungard New Holdings III, LLC as previously
authorized by Ordinance S-48184 for Disaster Recovery as a Service (DRaaS). No
additional funds are needed.

Summary
Sungard Availability Services, LP (Sungard AS) was selected to provide the City
disaster recovery services to help ensure critical systems and services are available
during emergency situations. Their fully managed DRaaS solution integrates with other
existing cloud disaster recovery services, establishes security protections to meet
regulatory requirements, and offers effective approaches to keep City business
applications and data synchronized. The services also prevent unauthorized access,
disclosure, and/or modification of the City's data to preserve data integrity and
residents' trust.

Information technology companies such as Sungard AS provide increasingly complex
products and services and will not agree to fully indemnify the City nor accept
unlimited liability. Granting an exception would authorize the City to negotiate
indemnification and assumption of liability provisions that best protect the City while
still being aligned to IT industry standards and acceptable to Sungard AS.

Contract Term
This is a four-year contract term, with up to three two-year options to extend for a
maximum ten-year contract term.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact related to this request, as funding for this agreement was
approved as part of Ordinance S-48184. This request is only for authorization to grant
an exception from the indemnification and liability provisions of City Code section 42-
18.



Page 46

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Dec. 15, 2021, Ordinance S-
48184.

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




Page 47



Report

Professional Services for IT Project Management and Business Analysis
Support - Amendment (Ordinance S-48293)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
agreements with: CE Wilson Consulting, LLC Contract 144530; Envision, LLC Contract
144528; IntraEdge, Inc., Contract 144532; Kolla Soft, Inc., Contract 144531; and Scott
Business Group, LLC Contract 144533 to extend the term and allow additional
expenditures for professional Information Technology (IT) project management and
business analysis services on an as-needed basis for the Information Technology
Services Department (ITS) in support of various departments. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $3,060,000. Remaining funds previously authorized by
the City Council will be applied to the extended contract term. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The City utilizes contract project managers and business analysts to augment staff.
This model provides flexibility and allows the City to select project managers and
business analysts with the skill set and experience specific to the IT project being
undertaken. The number of citywide IT projects vary over time and staff in these roles
are needed to ensure that projects meet the necessary business requirements, project
scope, and are completed on time and on budget.

Recently, the ability to utilize these contracts allowed ITS to contract with project
managers and business analysts to expeditiously support critical initiatives such as
enhancements to the citywide cyber security programs, Fire and Police department
critical system modernization efforts, and the myPHX311 initiative. This request is for
additional contract term and funding to allow the City to support existing engagements
and upcoming IT project needs, and avoid disruption to key initiatives. Including
allowing the Project Management Office to finalize an assessment and roadmap to
mature operational practices to meet the City's evolving business needs and continuity
of service.

Contract Term
The term of these agreements would be extended through Jan. 31, 2023.



Page 48

Financial Impact
This amendment will increase the authorization for these agreements by an additional
$3,060,000 for a new total aggregate not to exceed $9,660,000. Funding is available in
various departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
These agreements were originally approved by City Council on Feb. 1, 2017,
Ordinance S-43212. On July 1, 2021, City Council approved additional funds, as per
Ordinance S-47817.

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




Page 49



Report

Enter into an Agreement with Vitalyst Health Foundation for ARPA Phoenix
Urban Agriculture Fellowship Program (Ordinance S-48295)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Vitalyst Health Foundation to provide administration of the Phoenix Urban
Agriculture Fellowship Program, which provides opportunities for Phoenix residents to
gain experience in all aspects of food production with local Phoenix farms to grow the
next generation of food producers. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to
accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. The
agreement value will not exceed $151,000. Funding is available through the City’s
allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received from the federal
government, and is under the City’s Phoenix Resilient Food System category of the
strategic plan, as well as from a Gila River Indian Community grant. There is no impact
to the General Fund.

Summary
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Office of Environmental Programs (OEP)
developed a food assistance plan to address the food needs of vulnerable populations
and communities impacted by COVID-19. The plan provides: 1) access to healthy
foods for impacted populations; 2) food infrastructure assistance regarding
transportation and delivery with a focus on home delivery; 3) support for food banks,
food pantries, and community agencies; 4) support for increased local food production;
and 5) business and employment opportunities throughout the food system spectrum.

This program provides workforce training for residents to learn the business of food
production while assisting food producers with needed employees.

Equity and Inclusion
Phoenix Urban Agriculture Fellowship
The fellowship is designed to train the next generation of growers who will represent
the future of farm entrepreneurship, innovation, and business ownership in Phoenix.
The program is open to nine City of Phoenix residents ages 18-24, who would work
with a local grower beginning February 2022. The program is available Citywide and
targets Spanish-speaking residents and Black, Indigenous, and People of Color
(BIPOC). Additionally, upon completion of the fellowship, participants are eligible to


Page 50

enter the Phoenix Worker Cooperative Sustainable Food System Incubator Training
Program. The fellows will be paid $15 per hour for a maximum of 20 hours per week,
for 50 weeks for work. Each fellow will be matched with the nine Host Farms that have
agreed to participate in the program.

The nine Host Farms include: Maya’s Farm, Crooked Sky Farm, Horny Toad Farm, 40
Akers Farming, Project Roots, Arizona Worm Farm, Arizona Microgreens, 3 Angels
Livable Communities Initiative (LCI), and Local Phoenix Organizing Committee. These
farms are a diverse representation including small and large farms growing with
various methods, such as organic, inground, greenhouse, in addition to diverse
ownership.

Vitalyst Health Foundation (Vitalyst) will serve as a subrecipient and will administer the
program, including payment to fellows. Vitalyst is a nonprofit organization located in
Phoenix whose mission is to connect, support, and inform efforts to improve the health
of individuals and communities in Arizona. Vitalyst has worked directly with the City on
food system initiatives and was a key stakeholder in the development of the 2025
Phoenix Food Action Plan and in guiding the development of ARPA-funded Phoenix
food programs. This program is in line with their community health initiatives.

OEP will assist Vitalyst to oversee the agreement and coordinate any needed services,
such as program outreach and recruitment.

Four fellowships are being funded by ARPA and five are being funded by an OEP grant
received from the Gila River Indian Community.

Procurement Information
Services may be procured, as needed, in accordance with Administrative Regulation
3.10 to implement and administer programs intended to prevent, prepare for, respond
to, and recover from the COVID-19 national pandemic.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2022 through March 31,
2023. The agreement may be extended based on continuous need and available
funding, which may be exercised by the City Manager, or his designee.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will not exceed $151,000. There is no impact to the General
Fund. The funding breakdown is as follows:

$76,000 - American Rescue Plan Act


Page 51

$75,000 - Gila River Indian Community Grant

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Office of
Environmental Programs.




Page 52



Report

Request to Enter into an Agreement with Accurate Appraisals U.S.A., LLC for
Single-Family Home Appraisal Services (Ordinance S-48272)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Accurate Appraisals U.S.A., LLC to provide single-family home appraisal services
for the Housing Department's scattered site properties. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract
value will not exceed $125,000. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The Housing Department owns and operates public housing, including more than 245
single-family homes. The United States Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) has approved Section 18/32 homeownership programs, which
provide the right to sell these single-family homes subject to certain requirements. The
home appraisal services will provide a full report, desk report, and/or updated
summary report that will meet the HUD Section 18/32 homeownership programs. All
summary appraisal reports will comply with the reporting requirements set forth under
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Appraiser must be certified
with the State of Arizona, National Registry of Appraisers, Arizona Appraiser
Qualifications Board of the Appraisal Foundation, Federal System Award Management
(SAM.gov) and HUD requirements during the term of the contract.

Procurement Information
IFB FY 21-086-03 Home Appraisal Services was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10. One offer was received by the Housing Department on
Oct. 5, 2021. The offer was evaluated based on price, responsiveness to all
specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide the required
services. The offer submitted by Accurate Appraisals U.S.A., LLC is deemed to be fair
based on the market contract pricing.

Staff recommends that the offer from Accurate Appraisals U.S.A., LLC be accepted as
the lowest-priced, responsive, and responsible offer.

Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2022, and end on Jan. 31, 2027.


Page 53


Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $125,000 (including applicable taxes).
This contract is funded with HUD funds. There is no impact to the General Fund.

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




Page 54



Report

Authorization to Amend Contract with PUN Group, LLP for Fiscal Monitoring
Services (Ordinance S-48269)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 149307
with PUN Group, LLP (PUN Group) in the amount not to exceed $182,856 for a new
contract total of $948,871. PUN Group provides fiscal monitoring services for Human
Services Department programs. Further, request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the contract.

Summary
PUN Group conducts annual fiscal audits of subrecipients accountable to the City to
facilitate Human Services Department programs. These fiscal audit activities are
required to comply with federal grant stipulations, including the Workforce Innovation
and Opportunity Act, Head Start, and Homeless Services Emergency Solutions Grant
programs.

Procurement Information
Solicitation RFP-CED18-FMS, Fiscal Monitoring Services, was issued on Aug. 30,
2018, and conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. The PUN
Group submitted the only responsive offer for this business opportunity. Staff verified
the proposal met the minimum qualifications and requirements of the RFP.

Contract Term
The contract began on Dec. 15, 2018, for a 1-year term, with four one-year renewal
options, which may be exercised by the City Manager or his designee.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $948,871. $53,200 in General
Funds have been allocated annually and $200,913 in grant funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Nov. 8, 2018, the Phoenix Business and Workforce Development Board approved
the Workforce Development Program funding portion of this contract.




Page 55

On Dec. 12, 2018, the City Council approved entering into contract with the PUN
Group with Ordinance S-45232.

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




Page 56



Report

Authorization for Payment Authority for Trimark-Park Place, LLC (Ordinance S-
48278)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, for $712,500 in payment
authority to pay the final notice of claim and related settlement agreement, executed
on Nov. 26, 2021, for property damage sustained on Trimark-Park Place, LLC
(Trimark) property located at 1615 E. Northern Ave., Phoenix, Ariz. 85020 (Property).
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. Funding is available in the Human Services Department’s General Fund.

Summary
Trimark and Central Arizona Shelter Services, Inc. (CASS) are parties to a Facilities
Agreement dated June 5, 2020. The City executed a guaranty of CASS’s obligations
under the Facilities Agreement. In the Facilities Agreement, Trimark allowed CASS to
use the Property for temporary emergency shelter services by CASS and its clients
from June 5, 2020 through Sept. 30, 2021. The Facilities Agreement required CASS to
return the Property in a certain condition. Trimark asserted that the condition of the
Property at the end of the term of the Facilities Agreement failed to meet the condition
required by the Facilities Agreement, and Trimark filed a notice of claim with the City
under Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-821.01. The City, CASS, and Trimark
subsequently reached a written settlement of the claim, under which the City is
obligated to pay Trimark $712,500.

Financial Impact
Pursuant to the settlement agreement, expenditures will not exceed $712,500.
Funding is available in the Human Services Department’s General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 6, 2020, the City Council authorized staff to enter into contract with CASS to
provide emergency shelter, permanent housing and rapid re-housing services, and
authorizing the City Controller to disburse funds with Ordinance S-46598.

On June 17, 2020, the City Council approved the payment guaranty of the Facilities
Agreement between CASS and Trimark with Ordinance S-46776.



Page 57


On Sept. 2, 2020, the City Council approved adding additional funding to Contract
152439 with CASS with Ordinance S-46898.

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




Page 58



Report

Automated Materials Handling System for Burton Barr Library - Requirements
Contract - RFP 18-040 (A) (Ordinance S-48274)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148428 with Envisionware, Inc for the purchase of an
Automated Materials Handler (AMH) for the Library Department. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $284,062.

Summary
This contract is for the installation and upkeep of an Automated Materials Handler
(AMH) at the Burton Barr Central Library, which receives, checks in, and sorts
incoming materials into bins, significantly reducing staff effort. Library wishes to also
replace existing equipment at the Mesquite Library with an Envisionware AMH to meet
current requirements.

Contract Term
The contract term is Sept. 1, 2018 to Aug. 31, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $284,062 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $1,042,468. Funds are available in the Library Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Aug. 29, 2018.

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




Page 59



Report

Phoenix Public Library’s Integrated Library System - Requirements Contract
(Ordinance S-48281)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149073 with Innovative Interfaces, Inc. (III) to upgrade
Phoenix Public Library's Integrated Library System (ILS) with the "Vega Catalog" and
"Mobile App" platform enhancements for citywide use. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $370,000. There is no impact to the General Fund and
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 Library
Technology, Capital and Support Staff category of the strategic plan. The total amount
of the Innovative Interfaces, Inc. contract will not exceed $2.86 million through the
remaining life of the contract.

Summary
This item was originally adopted by City Council on Dec. 12, 2018 (Ordinance S-
45244). The Integrated Library System contract is through January 2022 with two one-
year options to extend and in an amount not to exceed $2.49 million over the life of the
contract. The "Vega Catalog" and "Mobile App" enhancements will cost $370,00 and
will be paid for with previously approved American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.The
Integrated Library System provided by Innovative Interfaces, Inc. serves as the Library
Department's primary business system, governing the acquisition and lending of library
materials to Phoenix residents, supporting online library card issue, providing library
users an online catalog (eMedia lending platforms, research databases, etc.), and
cardholders a secure view of their account. The Library’s website experiences an
average of 7.5 million yearly page views.

"Vega Catalog" enhancements will improve and/or replace aging services such as
Polaris PowerPAC, Polaris Telephony and Notices, Demco SignUp, etc. Library
customer user experience will be more intuitive as customers search for author and
topic pages throughout phoenixpubliclibrary.org and the library's catalog quickly and
seamlessly.

"Mobile App" enhancements will offer self-check and contact-less pickup, simplifies


Page 60

online payments and provides low-cost patron self-service options, including a digital
library card and a self-check via barcode or RFID. In addition, a “Curbside Pickup”
option is available for library customers to place holds on items in the app, be notified
when it’s time to pick up, and includes an “I’m Here” option to alert the library customer
is on site for curbside pickup.

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

Contract Term
The current contract is valid through Dec. 31, 2022 with an option to extend through
Dec. 31, 2023 which may be exercised at the discretion of the City Manager or his
designee.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $370,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $2.86 million. Funds are available as part of the ARPA funds
approved for the Library department.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Dec. 18, 2018.

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




Page 61



Report

Rental Rehabilitation Program Project Award (Ordinance S-48279)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into necessary loan
agreements with the property owner, Steven Germain, and other agreements as
necessary, for the completion of construction activities at 1027 E. Dunlap Ave. under
the Rental Rehabilitation Program. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse funds up to $200,000.

Summary
In March 2021, the City Council approved expanding the Rental Rehabilitation
Program to facilitate the preservation of single- and multi-family rental properties. The
program focuses on addressing structural, safety, and health related standards to
ensure the property is habitable and maintains its affordability. In this manner, the
Rental Rehabilitation Program supports the Housing Phoenix Plan's vision of utilizing
innovative and solution-oriented policies to address housing challenges citywide.

Eligible properties include single- and multi-family rental properties of up to 24 units,
occupied by, or set aside for, low- and moderate-income tenants. Financial assistance
of up to $40,000 per unit, with a maximum project award of $400,000, is available to
eligible property owners to complete renovation projects on their deteriorating property.

On a monthly basis, staff analyze applications for eligibility and completeness before
the review panel's application evaluation; the panel is comprised of City staff and
external affordable housing/rental property management industry experts, and is
tasked with recommending project awards based on owner capacity, property
management and management plan, project readiness, and financial feasibility. The
recommendation for Rental Rehabilitation project award is for up to $200,000 to
improve a five-unit multi-family property located at 1027 E. Dunlap Ave.

Financial Impact
This program is funded by the Community Development Block Grant; there is no
impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee recommended approval of this


Page 62

item on Jan. 5, 2022, by a 4-0 vote.

Location
1027 E. Dunlap Ave.
Council District: 3

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




Page 63



Report

Retroactive Authorization for School Sustainability Program Grant (Ordinance S-
48294)

Request to authorize retroactive approval for the City Manager, or his designee, to
apply for and, if awarded, authorize the City Treasurer to accept funding from the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Environmental Education Local
Grants Program. Further request City Council approval to create a two-year temporary
position, funded by the grant, to expand the City's current sustainability education
program to up to 50 Title I schools. The total grant requested is $90,000.

Summary
The EPA Region IX Environmental Education Local Grants Program is seeking to
advance environmental education.

The City of Phoenix Student Council Sustainability Officer (SCSO) Program is a
unique form of student engagement, the first of its kind in the nation, that aims to
embed sustainability on school campuses by amending Student Council Constitutions
to add an elected Sustainability Officer. SCSOs attend monthly meetings to learn how
to address and solve environmental issues, as well as develop leadership skills. Using
problem solving skills, SCSOs identify environmental challenges and work together to
increase environmental stewardship.

The City is seeking a grant from the EPA Region IX Environmental Education Local
Grants Program to support expansion of the City's current program over the next two
years with guidance and support from the Arizona Department of Education. The
funding will be used for three purposes: 1) supporting a new full-time grant-funded
temporary position to administer the program and identify a long-term home for the
program; 2) creating a green fund to provide mini-grants to schools; and 3) providing
program funding for creating a web-based green guide for schools.

Currently, the SCSO program is implemented in the largest school district in Phoenix.
This grant would allow the Office of Sustainability to expand the SCSO program to
additional school districts and students, as well as create a $22,500 micro-grant fund
to provide up to $2,500 in financial support for environmental stewardship projects in
specific schools. With backing from our partners, the Arizona Department of Education


Page 64

and the Arizona State University Sustainable Cities Network, the program will produce
a statewide Greening Events Guide for Schools to help students lower the
environmental impact of school events such as Homecoming and Prom and support
student-led change. The SCSO program aims to have at least 50 participating Title I
schools, representing 80,000 students by the end of the two-year project. The
sustainability of SCSO relies on schools amending their Student Council Constitutions
to include elected SCSO positions to ensure SCSOs are elected each school year
even after the grant period has ended. The SCSO program is scalable and serves as a
model of student engagement that can be easily replicated nationwide.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee recommended approval of this
item on Jan 5, 2022, by a vote of 4-0.

Contract Term
The grant period is from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
The Office of Sustainability currently supports the program with annual funding of an
Americorps VISTA to run the program, and will commit to continue to provide funding
at current levels, if needed, as part of the matching requirement for the grant.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Office of
Sustainability.




Page 65



Report

Authorize to Enter into a Development Agreement to Acquire and Improve 10
Acres within the Talinn Subdivision (Ordinance S-48263)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a
development agreement with DR Horton for the design, construction and dedication of
a new neighborhood park located within the Talinn subdivision at the northeast corner
of 56th Street and Deer Valley Drive. Further authorizing the City Controller to receive
and disburse funds.

Summary
DR Horton is developing the Talinn subdivision at Desert Ridge Superblock 1S(west).
The Desert Ridge Specific Plan, the governing land use document for the City for
Desert Ridge, calls for a 10-acre neighborhood park. The proposed ordinance will
authorize the execution of a development agreement that will establish the terms for
the construction of the park site. The major points of the agreement will include:

DR Horton will design and construct a public neighborhood park, including parking,
landscaping, amenities and other improvements that is generally in conformance with
a conceptual park plan. The final plan must be approved by the Parks and Recreation
Department.

DR Horton will dedicate the final accepted neighborhood park to the City.

DR Horton, on behalf of the future Homeowner's Association for Talinn (Talinn HOA),
will enter into a maintenance agreement with the City that sets forth the terms by which
the Talinn HOA will fund or otherwise provide on-going maintenance and customary
repairs in accordance with City maintenance standards.

DR Horton will receive park impact fee credit for the land at the rate established in the
Park Infrastructure Improvements Plan that is in effect at the time the development
agreement is executed, currently $200,000 per acre.

DR Horton will receive park impact fee credit, and/or cash reimbursement only if park
impact fee funds are available, for eligible park design and construction costs. Design
and construction costs are estimated at $2 million. All reimbursable costs will be


Page 66

subject to compliance with Arizona Revised Statutes title 34 governing public
procurement procedures.

Financial Impact
The City's financial obligation will be met using park impact fee credit, and/or cash
reimbursement only if park impact fee funds are available. There is no financial impact
to the City for on-going maintenance of the park.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Oct. 28, 2021, the Parks and Recreation Board approved acceptance of the land
dedication.

Location
Desert View Village, Northwest Park Impact Fee Area
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Ginger Spencer,
and the Parks and Recreation and Planning and Development departments.




Page 67



Report

Tree and Plant Materials Contract - Requirements Contract - IFB-PKS-SOD16-001
(A) (Ordinance S-48280)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144556 with Western Tree Company for the purchase of
tree and plant materials for the Parks and Recreation Department. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
additional expenditures will not exceed $200,000.

Summary
This contract provides the City with critical and essential plants and trees necessary to
help reach the City's 25 percent shade goal by 2030. These plants and trees allow the
Parks and Recreation Department to plant upwards of 1,500 trees per year throughout
the City in accordance with the City's Tree and Shade Master Plan. Additional funds
are needed to account for price increases and the additional needs by the City's Office
of Heat Response and Mitigation for community tree planting partnerships with the
Neighborhood Services Department. These additional funds will complete the tree
planting needs of the Parks and Recreation Department throughout the City, as the
current amount on the contract is not sufficient to maintain the 1,500 per year goal.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Dec. 31, 2022.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $200,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $700,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017.

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



Page 68



Report

Authorization to Sell City-Owned Property Located at 4815 S. 67th Ave. to
Arizona Department of Transportation for State Route 30 (Ordinance S-48296)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to sell City-owned property
located at 4815 S. 67th Ave. to the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) for
State Route 30. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds
related to this item.

Summary
ADOT requires the property for construction of the proposed State Route 30 which will
extend between Loop 202 and Loop 303 through southwest Phoenix, Avondale and
Goodyear. The property is approximately 85.98 acres (net) of vacant land, leased for
sand and gravel operations from January 2006 through February 2021. Most of the
site is a sand and gravel pit that cannot be developed without significant fill.

Financial Impact
Revenue of $1,505,220 is reflective of appraised value.

Location
4815 S. 67th Ave., identified by Maricopa County Assessor parcel number 104-66-001.
Council District: 7

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




Page 69



Report

Resolution to Declare 2023 NFL Super Bowl Activities in Downtown Phoenix as
Special Promotional Events (Resolution 21987)

Requests City Council approval of a Resolution declaring that for the four-week period
before the National Football League (NFL) Super Bowl LVII game on Sunday, Feb. 12,
2023, and for one week after, all Official NFL Events and other NFL and Arizona Super
Bowl Host Committee-sanctioned activities held in the Downtown Redevelopment Area
will be considered special promotional and civic events for the purposes of the Zoning
Ordinance.

Summary
It is anticipated that certain NFL game-related activities will take place in downtown
Phoenix in the weeks prior to and after the game. These events and activities will bring
significant revenue and media exposure to the City of Phoenix during the event period.
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, section 705.F.1.b, provides that advertising devices
otherwise prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance may be erected in the Downtown
Redevelopment Area, subject to a use permit, in conjunction with special promotional
events of a civic or commercial nature. By declaring the NFL and Arizona Super Bowl
Host Committee-sanctioned activities as special promotional and civic events, this
Resolution allows the NFL, NFL-approved sponsors, and Arizona Super Bowl Host
Committee to advertise official events in the Downtown Redevelopment Area by use of
signs, banners, and similar devices. This action will not impact any existing permitted
permanent signs in downtown. This declaration will restrict all temporary signage
within the Downtown Redevelopment Area that has not been authorized by the NFL
and/or Arizona Super Bowl Host Committee during the above-mentioned time period in
order to support NFL event-related activities.

Location
Downtown Redevelopment Area
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Ginger Spencer,
and the Phoenix Convention Center and Planning and Development departments.



Page 70
Page 71
D:\Projects\City_of_Phoenix\60611046_COP_RDA\900_CAD_GIS\920_929_GIS_Graphics\920_GIS\mxds\StoryMapPrep\Drafts_04-02-2020\FinalBoundary_04172020_HopeVI.mxd
2020-04-17
Harrison
South Black Canyon Hwy c̈
§
22nd Ave
Legend
21st Dr Grant St
21st Ave Sherman St
Hadley St 20th Dr
Tonto St 20th Ave
Maricopa St
19th Dr
19th Ave
18th Dr
Proposed RDA Boundary (7,031 Parcels)
18th Ave
17th Ave
G
rand
16th Ave
Av
15th Dr e
15th Ave
14th Ave
13th Ave v
I
12th Ave
11th Ave
10th Ave
Polk St ä
§
9th Ave
c̈
§ 8th Ave
7th Ave
6th Ave
5th Ave
4th Ave
3rd Ave
2nd Ave
1st Ave
Central Ave
ATTACHMENT A
2nd St
2nd Pl
5th St
7th St
Pierce St
Polk St Garfield St
Lincoln St Fillmore St
9th St Jackson St
Taylor St
Portland St
McKinley St
Moreland St
10th St
Roosevelt St
11th St
Van Buren St
12th Pl
13th Pl
14th Pl
±
0 15th Pl
16th St
Yuma St
Papago St Monroe St
Pima St Washington St
Miles 0.25 Cocopah St
Mohave St Madison St Adams St
Apache St
Buckeye Rd
Jefferson St
0.5




Proposed RDA Boundary



Report

Urban Interface Fire Fighting Gear for Fire Department - National Purchasing
Partners Cooperative Contract - Amendment - 00000170A (Ordinance S-48266)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 150751 with L.N. Curtis and Sons, to provide additional funding for the
purchase of Urban Interface Fire Fighting Gear for the Fire Department and also allow
the Public Works Department to use this contract. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures
included in this amendment will not exceed $490,000.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to authorize additional funding, which is needed due
to an unusually high fire season that included providing emergency response and
assistance to other municipalities during large fires, which has led to an increased
demand for tools and equipment.

Urban Interface Fire Fighting Gear are essential tools for the Fire Department to
accurately and efficiently fight brush fire operations. These tools and equipment assist
the Fire Department to provide life safety services to the public in critical incidents and
complicated scenes to protect structures, land and people from the threat of fire when
a limited water supply is available.

The Public Works Department Fleet Services Division requests authority to use the
cooperative contract to purchase specialty products for Police and Fire vehicles. The
cooperative contract offers a wide variety of products such as extraction tools and
supplies, hazardous materials equipment, hoses, pumps, and other emergency-related
systems. The contract will allow Public Works Fleet Services to directly acquire
specialized products from multiple Fire Fighting Gear manufacturers to keep public
safety fleet ready for optimal service.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Aug. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Contract 150751 was for an expenditure not to exceed


Page 72

$32,000. An amendment increased the authorization for the contract by $130,000. This
amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an additional $490,000,
for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $652,000.

Funding is available in the Fire and Public Works departments’ budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Urban Interface Fire Fighting Gear Contract 150751 (Ordinance S-45997) on Sept.
4, 2019; and
· Urban Interface Fire Fighting Gear Contract 150751 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
47040) on Nov. 4, 2020.

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




Page 73



Report

Request to Apply for and Accept Federal Fiscal Year 2021 Assistance to
Firefighters Grant Program Fund (Ordinance S-48291)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to retroactively apply for, and
accept, if awarded, up to $202,532 from federal fiscal year (FFY) 2021 Assistance to
Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program to fund three projects: Personal Protective
Equipment (PPE) Decontamination, Fire Ground Survival (FGS) Training, and Peer
Fitness Trainer (PFT) Certification. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer
to accept, and for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item. If not
approved, the grant, if awarded, would be turned down.

Summary
The AFG Program, administered through the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), is intended to help the nation's fire service by providing vital funds to local fire
departments across the country. The primary goal of the program is to meet the
firefighting and emergency response needs of fire departments, nonaffiliated
emergency medical service organizations, and State Fire Training Academies. Since
2001, AFG has helped firefighters and other first responders obtain critically needed
equipment, protective gear, emergency vehicles, training, and other resources
necessary to protect the public and emergency personnel from fire and related
hazards.

PPE Decontamination
The PPE Decontamination Project will update the Fire Department’s PPE
decontamination and cleaning process with an overall goal of improving firefighter
health and safety by reducing repeated exposure to harmful contaminants on unclean
or inadequately cleaned PPE and fire ground equipment. The funds will be utilized to
purchase new washers and dryers and a downdraft table for use in the Fire
Department laundry room. The total cost for this project is $90,920 with a city match of
around $11,859 for upgrading the department’s aging PPE decontamination and
cleaning system.

Fire Ground Survival Training
The Fire Ground Survival (FGS) Training Project will certify Phoenix and regional
partner department trainers to teach Fire Ground Survival to Fire Department


Page 74

personnel. The training will enhance first responder awareness of conditions on the fire
ground and give Fire Department members the critical skills necessary to handle a
firefighter emergency. The funds will be utilized to provide training to 30 instructors and
purchase three training props for department wide training. The total cost for this
project is $79,612, with a city match of around $10,384.

Peer Fitness Trainer Certification
The Peer Fitness Trainer (PFT) Certification Training Project will train and certify Fire
Department personnel as Peer Fitness Trainers. The goal of this project will be to
certify Peer Fitness Trainers who can then deliver health and wellness training within
the Department. The funds will be utilized to train and certify 40 members as PFTs.
The total cost for this project is $32,000, with a city match of around $4,173.

Since 2008, the Fire Department has received more than $5 million in AFG funding.
These grants were used to purchase portable radios, thermal imaging cameras,
Incident Safety Officer System training, Automatic Chest Compression devices, Peer
Support Team Training and Physical Therapy Equipment upgrades.

Procurement Information
The Fire Department will administer the grant in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10.

Contract Term
The two-year grant Period of Performance is projected to begin on or around May 1,
2022.

Financial Impact
A cost share of up to 15 percent of the award amount is required. Funds are available
in the Fire Department's operating budget.

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




Page 75



Report

Green Canines - Requirements Contract - RFQu 18-094 (A) (Ordinance S-48273)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contracts 147421,147424, 147425 and 147427 with Vohne Liche
Kennels, Inc., Shallow Creek Kennels, Inc., Adlerhorst International, LLC, and Global
K9 Solutions, LLC for the purchase of Green Canines for the Police Department.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $51,720.

Summary
The Police Department's Canine Unit utilizes Vohne Liche Kennels, Inc., Shallow
Creek Kennels, Inc., Adlerhorst International, LLC, and Global K9 Solutions, LLC to
purchase untrained or "green" canines capable of being trained as dual purpose police
service dogs. The Canine Unit is responsible for locating, testing, and selecting the
canine candidates. The canines must be Green Dogs that have received minimal
training and are able to be trained for narcotics and patrol functions. The Green
Canines are tested and evaluated in order to gauge their drive, courage, obedience,
temperament, and social abilities.

The additional funds are needed to replace current canines ready to retire and to
maintain funds vital to purchase new Green Dogs to replace current canines, in case
an injury or medical event happens to the service dog.

Contract Term
The contract term is March 22, 2018 through Feb. 28, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $51,720 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $156,720. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on March 21, 2018.




Page 76

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




Page 77



Report

Request Authorization for Sale of Canine Murphy (Ordinance S-48285)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of Police
canine Murphy to Detective Billy Denham for $1.00. Detective Denham is assigned to
the Homeland Defense Bureau and has requested to retire and purchase his assigned
canine Murphy in accordance with Administrative Regulation 4.21. Detective Denham
will be retiring from the Police Department on or about Feb. 11, 2022.

Summary
Police service dog Murphy is six and a half years old, and has been assigned to the
Police Department's Homeland Defense Bureau since September 2017 where he has
been assigned to Detective Denham. Canine Murphy was donated to the City at no
cost to the Department and is approaching the end of his service life for Explosive
Detective Canines.

This request is for the authorization of the sale of Police service canine Murphy for
$1.00. The purchase of canine Murphy is being made by Detective Billy Denham, who
agrees to accept full responsibility and liability for him and to care for him for the
remainder of his life.

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




Page 78



Report

Randox Laboratories - Requirements Contract - RFA 17-099 (B) (Ordinance S-
48283)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures and to extend Agreement 144093 with Randox Laboratories US, Limited,
for the purchase of Ultra-blood Driving Under the Influence Drugs Investigator Kits and
Controls for the Police Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed
$50,000.

Summary
The Police Department's Laboratory Services Bureau utilizes Ultra-blood Driving
Under the Influence Drugs Investigator Kits and Controls from Randox Laboratories
US, Limited to detect drugs in blood and urine samples of suspects and victims for
cases involving driving under the influence of drug(s), sexual assault, and/or homicide.
The kits ensure the ability to provide timely results to successfully support criminal
investigations, the judicial system, and public safety.

The additional funds and contract extension are necessary in order to ensure the
Police Department's operational needs are not interrupted, while a new procurement
process is completed.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Aug. 1, 2022.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $50,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $245,000. Funds are available in the Police Department's
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Dec. 7, 2016; supplemental
actions include Ordinance S-48018 approved on Oct. 27, 2021.




Page 79

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




Page 80



Report

Hornady Amax Tap Ammunition - Requirements Contract - IFB 17-086A
(Ordinance S-48275)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures and to extend Contract 144426 with Miwall Corporation for the purchase
of ammunition for the Police Department. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not
exceed $45,000.

Summary
The Phoenix Police Department's Training Bureau, Firearms Training Detail, utilizes
Hornady Amax Tap Ammunition for sniper rifle firearms training and for on-duty
purposes for the Special Assignments Unit (SAU). This ammunition is critical for the
SAU in high-risk situations due to its accuracy and ability to stop a threat to public
safety.

The requested additional funds are necessary for the contract term extension through
Jan. 31, 2023.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Jan. 31, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $45,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $140,000. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017.

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




Page 81



Report

Police Duty Gear - Requirements Contract - NPPGov VH11603 (A) (Ordinance S-
48284)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 150290 with Proforce Marketing, Inc. dba Proforce Law
Enforcement for the purchase of police duty gear for the Police Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $315,000.

Summary
The Special Assignments Unit is requesting to add $165,000 to the current Proforce
contract for the purchase of 12 additional sets of L3 PVS-31 Night Vision Systems
(NVS). The current contract was requested to purchase 50 of the Night Vision Systems
to replace aging inventory; however, due to limited funding, only 38 night vision
goggles were purchased. Staff is requesting an additional $165,000 to be added to the
contract for the purchase of the remaining 12 NVS and accessories originally
authorized. NVS devices are utilized for high-risk events such as hostage rescue
incidents, high risk search warrants, and workplace/school active shooter incidents.

The Property Management Unit (PMU) is also requesting to add $150,000 to the
Proforce contract. The PMU is transitioning to 9mm Glock 17 Gen 5 which require the
purchase of new holsters and ammo pouches. This contract covers duty belts,
handcuff cases, and OC spray holders. Additional supplies are needed for new
recruits.

Contract Term
The contract term is Sept. 1, 2019 through Aug. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $315,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $802,500. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on May 15, 2019.


Page 82


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




Page 83



Report

***ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** (CONTINUED FROM
NOV. 17 AND DEC. 15, 2021) - 40-Foot Heavy Duty Transit Bus Contract Award
Recommendation (Ordinance S-48119)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
GILLIG, LLC to manufacture and deliver replacement 40-foot heavy-duty local transit
buses for the Public Transit Department. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will
not exceed $145,023,384.

Summary
A Request for Proposals (RFP #PTD20-003) was issued to solicit this five-year
contract with a transit vehicle manufacturing firm to manufacture and deliver 40-foot
heavy-duty local transit buses that use compressed natural gas (CNG) or biodiesel as
the fuel source. City Council approved the issuance of this solicitation at their Feb. 17,
2021 formal meeting. Buses will be ordered based on the Public Transit Department’s
replacement schedule for local buses that have met or exceeded their useful life under
Federal Transit Administration guidelines.

The Public Transit Department will also issue a solicitation for the procurement,
evaluation and use of zero and near-zero emission buses, if approved by Council. The
City’s most recent and previous testing of alternate transit vehicles demonstrated that
CNG buses provided the best low-emissions option that also operates safely,
effectively and reliably on long routes in the Phoenix climate. However, the "Green
Transit" technology procurement will solicit the most up-to-date, environmentally
friendly buses, including electric, hybrid or other alternative propulsion vehicles
available for additional testing and on a long-term basis. The contract award
recommended in this item will allow the City to replace buses that have exceeded their
useful life and have reduced reliability and efficiency, while continuing to explore,
evaluate and move forward with the alternative-powered buses as technologies
advance and become available.

Procurement Information
RFP #PTD20-003 was issued on April 15, 2021, with two firms submitting proposals
for consideration. An evaluation committee of qualified staff from Public Transit


Page 84

Department and Valley Metro was appointed to conduct detailed evaluations of all
proposals received, establish a competitive range, and select a proposer to receive the
contract award.

A technical advisory team was also established to provide technical assistance to the
evaluation committee based on the advisors’ knowledge and experience with transit
vehicle manufacturing and long-term maintenance practices. The technical advisory
team’s role was to review the technical portions of each proposal for compliance with
RFP specifications.

Each RFP was evaluated and scored based on the following criteria (1,000 points total
possible):
· Design, Quality, and Production Process (up to 400 points);
· Price (up to 400 points); and
· Warranty (up to 200 points).

Two proposals were received from the following firms:
· GILLIG, LLC; and
· New Flyer.

The evaluation recommendations were reached by consensus in consideration of
published selection criteria, with the committee selecting GILLIG, LLC for award. The
following summarizes the results:

Proposers Total points
GILLIG, LLC 820
New Flyer 775

In accordance with Phoenix City Code section 43-14(J), a contract shall be awarded to
the most highly-rated, responsible firm whose offer conforms in all material respects to
the requirements and criteria outlined in the solicitation. Accordingly, the Public Transit
Department’s Procurement Officer recommends the award to GILLIG, LLC.

Included in the RFP's pricing schedule was the following language: "The estimated
quantities shown on the enclosed Price Schedules are estimates only, contingent upon
availability of appropriated funds and subject to change during the term of the
Contract. The City is not obligated to make purchases in these exact amounts." As
such, Public Transit Department staff will continue exploring other viable technologies
that meet the region's operational needs and look for opportunities to transition to
other proven propulsion technologies.


Page 85


Financial Impact
The term of the awarded contract shall be five years with an aggregate value of
$145,023,384. Buses are funded 85 percent with federal funds and 15 percent with
regional funds. The Public Transit Department estimates purchasing a maximum of
265 buses over the five-year period. Funds are available in the Public Transit
Department's five-year Capital Improvement Program.

Concurrence
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended approval
of this item on Oct. 20, 2021 by a vote of 3-1.

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




Page 86
PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPARTMENT

To: Mario Paniagua Date: Jan. 20, 2022
Deputy City Manager

From: Jesus Sapien
Public Transit Director

Subject: ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - REVISED STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR
ITEM 49 ON THE JAN. 26, 2022 FORMAL AGENDA (LAST CONTINUED
FROM DEC. 15, 2021 FORMAL AGENDA) -40-FOOT HEAVY DUTY TRANSIT
BUS CONTRACT AWARD RECOMMENDATION
This memo provides additional information to Item 49 on the Jan. 26, 2022 Formal agenda,
Ordinance S-48119 , which was last continued from the Dec. 15, 2021 formal agenda. The
following is added to the staff recommendation of approval for this item:
• The Public Transit Department will prioritize bus replacements using alternate
propulsion systems acquired through the Green Transit Technology RFP's resulting
contracts, such as electric and hybrid, and will utilize this contract as needed to fill
remaining vehicle replacement needs
• For the first year of vehicle replacements, the Public Transit Department will order no
more than forty (40) buses under this contract for buses which have met or exceeded
their useful life.
• Subsequently, on an annual basis the Public Transit Department will return to City
Council to review and seek Council approval on future years' heavy duty bus orders.
Such annual updates will include:
o progress made relative to testing and implementing electric, hybrid, or other
alternate bus propulsion systems;
o the department's fleet status, including buses that have met or exceeded their life
cycle and require replacement;
o contractual obligations;
o and the status of the department's ability to prioritize and expand the
implementation of such newer technologies based on testing results, equipment
and infrastructure upgrades needed to charge or fuel newer vehicles, funding
strategies, and vehicles' ability to meet the system's operational needs.


Approved by:



Mario Paniagua ' Date
Deputy City Manager


Page 87
PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPARTMENT


To: Mario Paniagua Date: Dec. 9, 2021
Deputy City Manager

From: Jesus Sapien
Public Transit Director

Subject: REQUEST TO CONTINUE ITEM 68, (CONTINUED FROM NOV. 17, 2021) - 40-
FOOT HEAVY DUTY TRANSIT BUS CONTRACT AWARD
RECOMMENDATION, FROM THE DEC. 15, 2021, FORMAL AGENDA


FOR CONTINUANCE: The Public Transit Department requests approval to continue of
Item 68, Ordinance S-48119, (CONTINUED FROM NOV. 17, 2021) - 40-Foot Heavy Duty
Transit Bus Contract Award Recommendation, from the Dec. 15, 2021 formal agenda to the
Jan. 26, 2022 formal agenda. This continuance allows Public Transit Department staff to
review additional procurement options for alternative propulsion system (no- and low­
emissions) buses.




Approved by:



Mario Paniagua Date
Deputy City Manager




Page 88



Report

Security Credentialing Assessment for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(Ordinance S-48290)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Aviation Security Consulting, Inc. to conduct an assessment of the current Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport credentialing operations and provide interim and long-
term process improvements and operational enhancements. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate
value of the contract will not exceed $475,000.

Summary
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) has rebounded from the pandemic at
an industry-leading pace. However, the current comprehensive airport security
credential processing time related to the on-boarding of prospective tenant employees
has led a number of employees to seek job opportunities elsewhere in an extremely
competitive market.

PHX has implemented a number of new processes in an attempt to alleviate some of
the processing delays in the short term. Aviation Security Consulting, Inc. (ASC) will
expand on these efforts to bring additional solutions to PHX using ASC's extensive
airport credentialing office experience at similar large hub airports with TSA-mandated
Airport Security Programs.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, an Emergency Determination
Memo was approved to enter into a contract with ASC.

ASC's recommended solutions to enhance the PHX badging process will focus on
responsive customer service and engagement as PHX develops and integrates a new
security identity management system.

Contract Term
The term of the contract is 18 months. The contract will contain one option to extend
the term on a month-to-month basis for a period of time not to exceed six months. The
term will commence on or about Feb. 1, 2022.


Page 89


Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $475,000 for the aggregate term of the contract.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

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 and the Aviation
Department.




Page 90



Report

Green Transit Technology Request for Proposals

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Public Transit
Department’s Request for Proposals process to procure vehicles for implementing a
pilot program to operate and evaluate a sub-fleet of heavy-duty transit buses that use
zero and/or near-zero emissions technology, and associated charging/fueling
technologies. This item replaces a previous authorization to issue a Green Transit
Technology RFP with a smaller contract capacity that the Council approved on Nov.
17, 2021. This request is to increase the capacity to $150 million over five years for
any contract(s) procured through this RFP.

Summary
The Public Transit Department (PTD) has worked for many years to ensure that our
fleet has the most up-to-date, environmentally-friendly buses with the best-proven
technology available to operate within Phoenix’s environment, particularly in terms of
vehicle range (how far buses travel with respect to regional transit services) and
extreme temperatures (ensuring buses have adequate air conditioning and other on-
board systems to provide a comfortable passenger experience especially during hotter
months). This Request for Proposals would allow the department to establish a sub-
fleet of green buses and test, on a long-term basis, a contingent of zero and/or near-
zero emissions buses for their ability to operate in our environment and support
operating needs, such as peak passenger loads, on-board equipment, and higher-
capacity air conditioning systems. The sub-fleet would initially serve as a pilot
program, with the ability to prioritize and continue the purchase of such buses if they
are found to meet the transit system’s operational needs, allowing PTD to gain
experience with newer technologies to determine how best to integrate them into the
City’s transit fleet.

Procurement Information
The Request for Proposals will be issued in Spring 2022 and request proposals to
manufacture buses using electric hybrid, battery electric, and/or hydrogen power (or
other suitable technologies bus manufacturers might propose), along with detailing any
associated charging and fueling equipment needed for the buses. PTD will assemble a
pilot fleet of buses using one or more of these available technologies and expand the
purchase of such buses that meet the transit system’s operational needs.


Page 91


Contract Term
The term of the awarded contract shall be five years, with the total number of buses to
be determined based on funding availability and the ability of the technologies
proposed to accommodate the transit system’s operational needs.

Financial Impact
The contract's estimated five-year aggregate value is a maximum of $150 million. In
conjunction with the purchase of these vehicles, staff will continue researching and
applying for grant opportunities when they arise, as newer-technology buses have a
higher cost than the current fleet make-up and additional equipment and infrastructure
upgrades may be necessary for the propulsion system(s) selected.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
the Public Transit Department and the Office of Sustainability.




Page 92



Report

T2050 Bus Stop Manufacturing and Repair Request for Proposals

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Public Transit
Department's Request for Proposals process to procure the manufacture and repair of
bus stops as part of the Transportation 2050 (T2050) Plan.

Summary
The Public Transit Department (PTD) manages over 4,000 bus stops within the City of
Phoenix. Bus stops serve as the gateway between the region’s transit passengers and
their trips, with PTD staff together with contracted service providers managing the
manufacture and repair of bus stops and associated amenities across Phoenix.

Procurement Information
PTD currently manages two contracts related to manufacturing and repair of bus stop
furniture. One contract provides for the manufacture and repair of 4,000 items of bus
stop furniture, including shelters, that were in place prior to the start of the Phoenix
T2050 Plan, and the manufacture of a redesigned "T2050 Shelter." A second, short-
term manufacturing contract, which was the result of a collaboration with the Arizona
State University (ASU) School of Industrial Design, provides for the development of
alternative shelters that improve the amount of shade provided by bus stop structures,
particularly in areas where right-of-way may be limited. Both contracts expire on June
30, 2022, and the manufacturing of both the T2050 and the ASU-inspired shelters will
be done under this new solicitation.

In addition to PTD’s annual allocation of bus stop installation and maintenance
funding, this contract proposed for solicitation will include the City Council’s allocation
of $500,000 in federal funding from the American Rescue Plan Act to be spent over the
first two years of the contract, adding 20 more structures per year to provide additional
shade in Phoenix. The contract will also include a $300,000 grant from the Gila River
Indian Community to be spent over two years for improved solar lighting assemblies at
bus stops.

Contract Term
The proposed contract will have a five year term and include: manufacture of new bus
shelters, seating, and trash receptacles; repair and modernization of solar lighting at


Page 93

bus shelters; installation of concrete as necessary for bus stop pads, and the repair of
bus stop amenities.

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




Page 94



Report

OshKosh Original Equipment Manufacturer Technical Training - Contract
Recommendation (Ordinance S-48286)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
OshKosh, Corp. for original equipment manufacturer (OEM) training for equipment
technicians. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. This item will have an aggregate amount of $203,831.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintenance and repair of multiple
types of fire apparatus in the fleet. It is imperative that the technicians assigned to the
Fleet Services Fire Operations have the technical knowledge to diagnose, repair, and
maintain all fire equipment. The OshKosh Corporation provides specialized, OEM
training for all fire apparatus manufactured under the OshKosh Corporation including
the Pierce and Oshkosh Defense brands, and is the sole provider of this training in the
United States. This OEM training is essential to maintain fleet diagnostics, vehicle
availability, and technical expertise required for the fire fleet.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10 normal procurement was waived as
a result of a determination memo citing sole source. OshKosh is the sole provider with
certified trainers to conduct the level of training required. Below is the annual amount
for technician training:

Pierce Fire Apparatus: $18,758.20
OshKosh Airport Rescue Fire Fighting: $22,008

Contract Term
This item will begin on or about March 1, 2022 for an initial one-year term, with four
option years to be exercised in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of
five years.

Financial Impact
This contract will have an estimated annual expenditure of $40,766.20, with a total
aggregate amount not to exceed $203,831.


Page 95


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

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




Page 96



Report

Illuminated Street Signs Fabrication and Installation - Requirements Contract
IFB 19-025B - Amendment (Ordinance S-48262)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 148743 with Fluoresco Services, LLC, to provide additional funding for the
fabrication and installation of illuminated street signs for the Street Transportation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures included in this amendment will not
exceed $3 million.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional funds which are necessary to
continue the replacement and re-signage of the City's illuminated street name signs,
as needed. The additional expenditures are required to address necessary
replacement of existing illuminated street name signs that have exceeded their useful
life.

This contract is used by the traffic signal shop section of the Street Transportation
Department and provides fabrication and installation of various sizes of single-sided
and double-sided illuminated street signs and components.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Nov. 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the illuminated street signs contract was for an expenditure
not-to-exceed $6.25 million. The first amendment increased the authorization for the
contract by $1.25 million. This amendment will increase the authorization for the
contract by an additional $3 million, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of
$10.5 million.

Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:


Page 97

· Illuminated Street Signs Contract 148743 (Ordinance S-45090) on Nov. 7, 2018;
and
· Illuminated Street Sign Fabrication and Installation Services Contract 148743 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-47134) on Dec. 2, 2020.

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




Page 98



Report

Thermoplastic Pavement Marking Raw Material - Requirements Contract - IFB 22
-069 (Ordinance S-48282)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Ennis-Flint, Inc., to purchase thermoplastic pavement marking raw materials 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
$1,033,000.

Summary
The Signing and Striping Section of the Street Transportation Department utilizes
thermoplastic pavement marking raw material in its daily operations to install and
maintain pavement markings throughout the City of Phoenix streets. These markings
include crosswalks and stop-bars. These activities serve the City's strategic plan
priorities to create and maintain intra-city transportation and to maintain existing
streets and associated assets in a state of good repair so they are clean, safe, and
aesthetically pleasing for all users.

Procurement Information
IFB 22-069 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
was one offer received by the Procurement Division on Dec. 9, 2021, which was
evaluated on price, responsiveness to specifications, and responsibility to provide the
required goods and services. The bid notification was sent to 49 suppliers and was
publicly posted and available for download from the City's website. The price was
determined to be fair and reasonable based upon market research conducted on
hydrocarbon-based raw materials and the review of awards by other governmental
agencies for the same materials.

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the offer from Ennis-Flint, Inc., be
accepted as the lowest priced, responsive and responsible offer.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about Feb. 15, 2022.




Page 99

Financial Impact
The total contract value will not exceed $1,033,000.

Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's budget.

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




Page 100



Report

Machine Shop and Related Services Contract Amendment (Ordinance S-48268)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures and amend Contract 154134 with Device Development LLC to provide
machine shop services for the Phoenix Convention Center Department (PCCD).
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $50,000.

Summary
The PCCD is requesting to use an existing Water Services Department contract for
Machine Shop and Related Services. These services will provide spacers and flanges
to retrofit new water valves throughout the Phoenix Convention Center facilities as
needed. The PCCD has more than 200 water valves located throughout the campus,
many of which are approaching the end of their useful life and will require replacement
during the term of this contract.

Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged ending on June 30, 2027.

Financial Impact
With the $50,000 in additional funds, the revised contract value will be $1,470,000
(including applicable taxes). Funds are available in the PCCD operating budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The machine shop and related services contract was originally approved by the City
Council on April 7, 2021 in Ordinance S-47424, with an original contract value of
$1,420,000.

Location
Phoenix Convention Center, 100 N. 3rd St. and 33 S. 3rd St.
Council Districts: 7 and 8

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


Page 101



Report

35th Avenue: I-10 to Camelback Road (BUILD) - Engineering Services -
ST89340634 (Ordinance S-48264)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Entellus, Inc., to provide Engineering Services that include assessments, surveys,
design and possible construction administration and inspection services for the 35th
Avenue: I-10 to Camelback Road (BUILD) 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 $3,094,505.

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 a series of improvements that target
current pedestrian and vehicular safety concerns on 35th Avenue between Interstate
10 and Camelback Road, as well as improve vehicular mobility. It includes three
pedestrian hybrid beacons, LED lighting, approximately nine intersection
modernizations, upgraded signals throughout the corridor, raised medians, pavement
treatment on a deteriorated section, and installation of broadband to support intelligent
and connected transportation systems. The 35th Avenue: I-10 to Camelback Road
(BUILD) corridor safety project received funding from the United States Department of
Transportation through its competitive discretionary Better Utilizing Investments to
Leverage Development grant program.



Page 102

Entellus, Inc.’s, services include, but are not limited to, providing data collection
information, topographic surveying, drainage memorandum, traffic analysis, utility
investigation, and geotechnical investigation; preparing right-of-way acquisition legal
description documentation; completing final construction plans, specifications, and cost
estimates; providing bid phase services and preparing project addenda; and providing
possible construction administration and inspection services to include project
progress monitoring, review and certification of progress payments, clarification and
correction of technical project issues, 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. Five firms submitted proposals
and are listed below.

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Entellus, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc.
Rank 3: CA Group, Inc.
Rank 4: CIVTECH, Inc.
Rank 5: Y S Mantri & Associates, LLC

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is four 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 Entellus, Inc. will not exceed $3,094,505, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

This project will utilize federal funds and is subject to the requirements of 49 Code of
Federal Regulations Part 26 and the U.S. Department of Transportation
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise program. Funding is available in the Street
Transportation Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to


Page 103

execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all
rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.

Public Outreach
Entellus, Inc. will work with a public engagement firm contracted by the City to provide
public outreach by conducting interactive community meetings, small group and
individual business owner meetings, and through a variety of media, including direct
mail, door hangers, and/or flyers as needed for communication.

Location
35th Avenue: I-10 to Camelback Road
Council Districts: 4 and 5

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




Page 104



Report

License Agreement with AP 355 North Central Property, LLC to Provide Valet
Services (Ordinance S-48265)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a valet license
agreement with AP 355 North Central Property, LLC to provide valet services on City
property. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to
this item.

Summary
AP 355 North Central Property, LLC c/o Akara Partners would like to use City-owned
property abutting the Hampton Inn and Suites for the purpose of operating limited valet
parking services. The City will grant a valet license to use approximately 610 square
feet of ground space within the public right of way located on the south side of East
Polk Street between Central Avenue and 1st Street. The licensed premises is to be
used for operating valet services defined as accepting possession of a vehicle in the
licensed premises for the purpose of parking the vehicle for the operator in a location
other than the licensed premises. The licensed premises must be kept free and clear
for operation of valet services during the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m., seven days
a week. Long term and VIP parking is prohibited, but express delivery vehicles may be
permitted for short periods.

Contract Term
The term of the valet license will be for ten years with four, five-year extension options.

Financial Impact
The City is expected to receive $1,866.60 annually, which may be increased annually
based on the Consumer Price Index.

Location
355 N. Central Ave., approximately the southeast corner of Central Avenue and Polk
Street
Council District: 7




Page 105

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




Page 106



Report

Salt River Project Land Use License for 7th Street and Highline Canal -
ST87600123 (Ordinance S-48287)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Land Use
License with Salt River Project for work associated with City of Phoenix project
ST87600123 7th Street and Highline Canal. 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.

Summary
The purpose of the Salt River Project (SRP) Land Use License is to allow the City to
maintain a signalized pedestrian crossing at the 7th Street and Highline Canal
intersection within SRP right-of-way. The work associated with this license is in
conjunction with City Project ST87600123.

Contract Term
The term of the Land Use License shall be for 25 years beginning Feb. 1, 2022, and
ending Jan. 31, 2047. The license may be renewed upon written agreement by the
parties.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix for this license.

Location
7th Street and Highline Canal
Council District: 8

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




Page 107



Report

Salt River Project Construction License for Water Main Replacement, Van Buren
to Harrison Streets between 31st and 35th Avenues - WS85509035 (Ordinance S-
48288)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Construction
License with Salt River Project for work associated with City of Phoenix project
WS85509035 Water Main Replacement, Van Buren to Harrison Streets between 31st
and 35th avenues. 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.

Summary
The purpose of this license is to allow the City to install waterline improvements and
fire hydrants that will cross and run parallel with Salt River Project (SRP) irrigation
facilities within SRP right-of-way. This work is in conjunction with City Project
WS85509035 Water Main Replacement, Van Buren to Harrison Streets between 31st
and 35th avenues.

Contract Term
The term of the Construction License is one year, effective when the City begins
construction, expected to be February 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix for this license.

Location
Van Buren to Harrison Streets between 31st and 35th avenues
Council Districts: 4 and 7

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




Page 108



Report

Salt River Project Construction License for 3rd Street Promenade, Garfield
Street to Indian School Road - ST87100162 (Ordinance S-48289)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a Construction
License with Salt River Project for work associated with City of Phoenix project
ST87100162 3rd Street Promenade, Garfield Street to Indian School Road. 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.

Summary
The City is constructing a roadway modernization project on 3rd Street from Garfield
Street to Indian School Road. The purpose of this license is to allow the City to install
roadway and traffic signal improvements that will cross and run parallel with Salt River
Project (SRP) irrigation facilities as well as to upgrade SRP irrigation facilities for
installation of a bus bay. This work is in conjunction with City Project ST87100162 3rd
Street Promenade, Garfield Street to Indian School Road.

Contract Term
The term of the Construction License is one year, effective when the City begins
construction, expected to be February 2022.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City of Phoenix for this license.

Location
3rd Street from Garfield Street to Indian School Road
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8

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




Page 109



Report

Cooling Tower Water Treatment Services Agreement (Ordinance S-48267)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Aqua-Serv Engineers, Inc., for cooling tower water treatment services in City-
owned facilities. The total aggregate amount is $1,936,500 over the life of the
agreement. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining cooling towers and closed
loop systems to ensure the safe, efficient, and reliable operation of the building air
conditioning equipment in City-owned facilities. This agreement will provide regular
maintenance of the systems, water treatment services, and remove solvents and
bacteria from the systems. Maintenance of these systems is necessary to prevent
solvents from recirculating back into the cooling systems and for proper equipment
operation. This agreement will also provide services for facilities maintained by the
Phoenix Convention Center and Water Services departments.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 22-FMD-019 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Three offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services Division on Sept. 15, 2021. The offers were evaluated based on
price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to
provide the required services. The offer submitted by Aqua-Serv Engineers, Inc. was
deemed fair and reasonable.

Aqua-Serv Engineers, Inc.:
Group A - Public Works and Water Services Locations: $20,810 price for regular
cooling tower maintenance.
Group B - Phoenix Convention Center Locations: $1,050 price for regular cooling
tower maintenance.

Contract Term
The one-year term of the agreement will begin on or about April 1, 2022. The
agreement contains four, one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement


Page 110

term of up to five years if all options are exercised.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the agreement, including all option years, is $1,936,500,
including all applicable taxes, with an estimated annual expenditure of $387,300.
Funding is available in the Phoenix Convention Center, Water Services, and Public
Works departments' budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Karen Peters, and
the Phoenix Convention Center, Water Services, and Public Works departments.




Page 111



Report

Final Plat - Hurley Ranch Phase 2 - PLAT 200637 - North of Broadway Road and
West of 83rd Avenue

Plat: 200637
Project: 02-4732
Name of Plat: Hurley Ranch Phase 2
Owner: Meritage Homes of Arizona, Inc.
Engineer: EPS Group, Inc.
Request: A 162 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 8, 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 Broadway Road and west of 83rd Avenue.
Council District: 7

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




Page 112



Report

Final Plat - 10215 S. 27th Avenue - 210082 - Southeast Corner of Lodge Drive and
27th Avenue

Plat: 210082
Project: 20-3255
Name of Plat: 10215 S. 27th Avenue
Owner(s): Annette Mayorga and Socorro D Martinez
Engineer(s): David S. Klein, RLS
Request: A 3-Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 7, 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
Southeast corner of Lodge Drive and 27th Avenue.
Council District: 8

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




Page 113



Report

Remove/Replace Zoning District - Cave Creek and Dynamite Boulevard
Annexation 508 - 4328 E. Dynamite Blvd. (Ordinance G-6944)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by removing the
Maricopa County RU-43 zoning district and replacing it with the City of Phoenix S-1
zoning district on property at the location described below, which was annexed into the

Location
Approximately 1.1 acre property located at 4328 E. Dynamite Blvd.
Council District: 2

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




Page 114
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 CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BY AMENDING
SECTION 601, THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR
THE ANNEXED PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN (CAVE CREEK
AND DYNAMITE BOULEVARD ANNEXATION, NO. 508) FROM
COUNTY RU-43 TO CITY’S S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE).

____________



WHEREAS, on October 27, 2021, via Ordinance S-48051, the City of

Phoenix annexed an approximately 1.1-acre property located at 4328 E. Dynamite

Boulevard, in a portion of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 4 East, as described

more specifically in “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein by this reference; and,

WHEREAS, as required by A.R.S. § 9-471.L, the city of Phoenix is

required to adopt zoning districts on the subject parcel to permit uses and densities no

greater than those allowed by the prior County zoning district; and,

WHEREAS, immediately prior to annexation the zoning applicable to this

territory was Maricopa County’s RU-43 zoning district; and

WHEREAS, the City’s S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) zoning district is

equivalent to Maricopa County's RU-43 zoning district;




Page 115
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1. The approximately 1.1-acre property located at 4328 E.

Dynamite Boulevard, in a portion of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 4 East, which

is described in “Exhibit A” and depicted in “Exhibit B” has been annexed to the City of

Phoenix, and the present corporate limits of the City have been extended and increased

to include such property.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. §9-471(L), the property depicted in

Exhibit B is hereby removed from Maricopa County's RU-43 zoning district and placed

into the City’s S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) zoning district. This zoning designation

shall take effect thirty days after this Ordinance is adopted, without further action by the


SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Ordinance, together

with “Exhibits A” and “Exhibit B” to be filed and recorded in the Records of the Office of

the Maricopa County Recorder, and

SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 26th day of January,

2022.



Page 116
________________________________
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 117
CAVE CREEK ROAD AND DYNAMITE BOULEVARD ANNEXATION
Legal Description
Appendix A

The West half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast
quarter of the Southwest quarter of Section 30, Township 5 North, Range 4 East,
G&SRB&M, Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows:
BEGINNING at the Northwest corner of said West half, said corner also a common
corner to the city limits line of the City of Phoenix as established in Ordinance No. G-
4199, recorded at Document No. 1999-0867759, official records of Maricopa County,
Arizona, and a common corner to the city limits line established in City of Phoenix
Ordinance No. S-43269, recorded at Document No. 2017-0161233 official records of
Maricopa County, Arizona;
thence Easterly along the South line of said Ordinance No. G-4199, to the
Northeast corner of said West half;
thence Southerly along the East line of said West half to a point in the North line
of the South 40 feet of said Section 30;
thence Westerly, along said Northerly line to the West line of said West half, said
line also being the East line of said Ordinance No. S-43269;
thence Northerly along the East line of said Ordinance No. S-43269 to the POINT
OF BEGINNING.




Page 118
Page 119



Report

Remove/Replace Zoning District - Ismail Annexation 510 - 3335 W. Baseline Road
(Ordinance G-6945)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by removing the
Maricopa County RU-43 zoning district and replacing it with the City of Phoenix S-1
zoning district on property at the location described below, which was annexed into the

Location
Approximately 6.67 acre property located at 3335 W. Baseline Road.
Council District: 8

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




Page 120
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 CODE OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, BY AMENDING
SECTION 601, THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX,
BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR
THE ANNEXED PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN (ISMAIL
ANNEXATION, NO. 510) FROM COUNTY RU-43 TO CITY’S S-1
(RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE).

____________



WHEREAS, on October 27, 2021, via Ordinance S-48052, the City of

Phoenix annexed an approximately 6.67-acre property located at 3335 W. Baseline

Road and 3437 W. Baseline Road, in a portion of Section 2, Township 1 South,

Range 2 East, as described more specifically in “Exhibit A” and incorporated herein

by this reference; and,

WHEREAS, as required by A.R.S. § 9-471.L, the city of Phoenix is

required to adopt zoning districts on the subject parcel to permit uses and densities no

greater than those allowed by the prior County zoning district; and,

WHEREAS, immediately prior to annexation the zoning applicable to this

territory was Maricopa County’s RU-43 zoning district; and

WHEREAS, the City’s S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) zoning district is

equivalent to Maricopa County's RU-43 zoning district;


Page 121
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PHOENIX, as follows:

SECTION 1. The approximately 6.67-acre property located at 3335 W.

Baseline Road and 3437 W. Baseline Road, in a portion of Section 2, Township 1

South, Range 2 East, which is described in “Exhibit A” and depicted in “Exhibit B” has

been annexed to the City of Phoenix, and the present corporate limits of the City have

been extended and increased to include such property.

SECTION 2. Pursuant to A.R.S. §9-471(L), the property depicted in

Exhibit B is hereby removed from Maricopa County's RU-43 zoning district and placed

into the City’s S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) zoning district. This zoning designation

shall take effect thirty days after this Ordinance is adopted, without further action by

the City Council, and

SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of this Ordinance,

together with “Exhibits A” and “Exhibit B” to be filed and recorded in the Records of the

Office of the Maricopa County Recorder, and

SECTION 4. 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 5. 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 26th day of January,

2022.



Page 122
________________________________
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 123
ISMAIL ANNEXATION
Legal Description
Appendix A

That part of Lot 4, YOUNG'S ACRES, according to the plat of record in the office
of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 17 of Maps at page 15,
bounded on the North by the city limits line of the City of Phoenix as established in
Ordinance No. G-4651, recorded at Document No. 2004-1243330, official records of
Maricopa County, Arizona, bounded on the West by the city limits line of the City of
Phoenix as established in Ordinance No. G2996, recorded at Document No. 1987-
322046, official records of Maricopa County, Arizona, bounded along the southerly
boundary thereof by the city limits line of the City of Phoenix as established in
Ordinances No. G-4687, recorded at Document No. 2005-0448955, official records of
Maricopa County, Arizona and S-40678, recorded at Document No. 2014-0222881,
official records of Maricopa County, Arizona, described as follows in two parts:

PART NO. 1:
The West half of Lot 4, YOUNG'S ACRES, according to the plat of record in the office
of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 17 of Maps at page 15;
EXCEPT from said West half, the north 42 feet thereof;

PART NO. 2:
The North 530 feet of the East half of Lot 4, YOUNG'S ACRES, according to the plat of
record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 17 of
Maps at page 15;
EXCEPT from said East half, the North 42 feet thereof;




Page 124
Page 125



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-21--Z-18-
10-1 - Southeast Corner of 13th Avenue and Parkview Lane Alignments
(Ordinance G-6948)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 15, 2021.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-18-10-1
Existing Zoning: CP/GCP DVAO
Acreage: 5.16

Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
Owner: North K LLC
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA

Proposal:
1. Review of conceptual site plans and elevations per Stipulation 1.
2. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding dedicating 40 feet of right-of-way for the north
half of Alameda Road and 30 feet for the south half of Parkview Road.
3. Technical correction to Stipulation 3.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee opted not to hear this case.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Dec. 15, 2021 and
recommended approval with a modification and an additional stipulation. See
Attachment A for the full list of Planning Hearing Officer recommended stipulations.

Location
Southeast corner of 13th Avenue and Parkview Lane Alignments.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A



Page 126

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




Page 127
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-18-10-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-5574.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the southeast

corner of 13th Avenue and Parkview Lane alignments in a portion of Section 7,

Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”,

are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to the Planning and
Development Services Department preliminary site plan approval. This review
is for conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements will be determined through the site plan approval process with
the Planning and Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 22, 2021, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. That The developer shall dedicate MINIMUM right-of-way totaling 40 feet OF
RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT for the north half SIDE of Alameda
Road, and that right-of-way totaling 30 feet shall be dedicated for the south
half of Parkview Road as approved by the Street Transportation Department



Page 128
and the Planning and Development Services AND STREET
TRANSPORTATION DepartmentS.

3. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE MINIMUM 30 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY AND CONSTRUCT THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKVIEW LANE, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS.

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

5. That The property owner shall record a Notice of Prospective Purchasers of
4. Proximity to Airport in order to 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.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5574 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5574 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site

until all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th day of January,

2022.




Page 129
________________________________
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 130
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21--Z-18-10-1

The West Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt river base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona;

Except All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Mineral Deposits as Reserved in Patent from the United
States of America Recorded as Docket 2230, Page 42.




Page 131
Page 132



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-21--Z-128-
07-1 - Approximately 800 Feet East of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road
Alignment (Ordinance G-6946)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 15, 2021.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-128-07-1
Existing Zoning: CP/GCP DVAO
Acreage: 5.12

Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
Owner: 2001 Landgroup LLP
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA

Proposal:
1. Review of conceptual site plans and elevations per Stipulation 1.
2. Modification of Stipulation 5 regarding dedication of 33 feet of right-of-way for the
north half of Alameda Road.
3. Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, and 4.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee opted not to hear this case.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Dec. 15, 2021 and
recommended approval with a modification. See Attachment A for the full list of
Planning Hearing Officer recommended stipulations.

Location
Approximately 800 feet east of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road alignment.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A



Page 133

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




Page 134
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-128-07-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-5167.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately

800 feet east of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road alignment in a portion of Section

7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”,

are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
Services Department preliminary site plan approval. This review is for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 22, 2021, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development (except the frontage road) with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals as
per plans approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services




Page 135
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.

3. That The developer shall provide proof of existence of federal patented right-
of-way 33-feet in width along the north side of the east-west midsection line
for Alameda Road alignment as approved by the Street Transportation and
PLANNING AND Development Services Departments.

4. That The developer shall comply with requirements of the City’s FINANCE
DEPARTMENT’S Real Estate DIVISION Department for City’s adoption of
said patented right-of-way as public streets.

5. That The developer shall dedicate MINIMUM 40 33-feet of right-of-way for
AND CONSTRUCT the north half of Alameda Road, as approved by the
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND Street Transportation and
Development Services Departments.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5167 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5167 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until

all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th day of January,

2022.




________________________________
MAYOR




Page 136
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 137
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21--Z-128-07-1

Lot 15, Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;

Excepting Therefrom All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Deposits As Reserved In The
Patent.




Page 138
Page 139



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-21--Z-129-
07-1 - Approximately 1,825 Feet East of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road
Alignment (Ordinance G-6947)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 15, 2021.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-129-07-1
Existing Zoning: CP/GCP DVAO
Acreage: 20.41

Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
Owner: North K LLC and 2001 Landgroup LLP
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA

Proposal:
1. Review of conceptual site plans and elevations per Stipulation 1.
2. Modification of Stipulation 5.a regarding dedicating 33 feet of right-of-way for the
north half of Alameda Road.
3. Modification of Stipulation 5.b regarding dedicating 33 feet of right-of-way for the
south half of Parkview Lane.
4. Modification of Stipulation 5.c regarding dedicating 66 feet of right-of-way for 15th
Avenue.
5. Modification of Stipulation 5.d regarding dedicating 45-foot radius cul-de-sacs on
Parkview Lane and Alameda Road.
6. Technical corrections to Stipulations 2, 3, 4, and 5.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee opted not to hear this case.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Dec. 15, 2021 and
recommended approval with modifications. See Attachment A for the full list of
Planning Hearing Officer recommended stipulations.


Page 140


Location
Approximately 1,825 feet east of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road alignment.
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: N/A

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




Page 141
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-129-07-1 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-5168.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately

1825 feet east of 19th Avenue and the Alameda Road alignment in a portion of

Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in

Attachment “A”, are hereby modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. That conceptual site plan(s) and elevations shall be approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process prior to Development
Services Department preliminary site plan approval. This review is for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 22, 2021, AS
MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

2. That The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development (except the frontage road) with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk,
curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals as
per plans approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services




Page 142
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards.

3. That The developer shall provide proof of existence of federal patented right of
way 33 feet in width along the following streets as approved by THE Street
Transportation and PLANNING AND Development Services Departments to
include:

a. North side of the east west midsection line Alameda Road alignment.

b. Both sides of the north south midsection line for 15th Avenue located
between Parkview Lane and Alameda Road.

c. East side of the north south midsection line for 15th Avenue located
north of Parkview Lane.

d. South side of the Parkview Lane alignment.

4. That The developer shall comply with requirements of the city’s FINANCE
DEPARTMENT’S Real Estate DIVISION Department for City’s adoption of
said patented right of way as public streets.

5. That The developer shall dedicate right of ways for properties as approved by
THE Street Transportation and PLANNING AND Development Services
Departments to include:

a. 33 MINIMUM 40 feet for the north half of Alameda Road.

b. 33 MINIMUM 30 feet for the south half of Parkview Lane.

c. 66 MINIMUM 60 feet full width for 15th Avenue.

d. 45-foot radius cul-de-sacs on Parkview Lane and Alameda Road as
approved by Street Transportation and Development Services
Departments.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use district

granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5168 this portion of the rezoning is now subject to

the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5168 and as modified in Section 1

of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of Phoenix

Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site until all the

stipulations have been met.



Page 143
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th 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 144
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21--Z-129-07-1

The West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of
Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona;

Excepting Therefrom All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Deposits As Reserved In The
Patent.

The Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest
Quarter of Section 7, Township 4 North, range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.

Excepting Therefrom All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Deposits As Reserved In The
Patent.

The North Half of the East Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the
Northwest Quarter of Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River
base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.

Excepting Therefrom All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Minerals Deposits As Reserved In The
Patent of Said Land.

The East Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona.

Except All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Mineral Deposits, All Uranium, Thorium, or Any Other
Material Which is or May be Determined to be Peculiarly Essential to the Production of
Fissionable Materials, Whether or not of Commercial Value as Reserved to the United States
of America in the Patent to Said Land.

The West Half of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of
Section 7, Township 4 North, Range 3 east of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona;

Except All Coal, Oil, Gas and Other Mineral Deposits as Reserved in Patent from the United
States of America Recorded as Docket 1741, Page 324..




Page 145
Page 146



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-21--Z-52-
08-7 - Northwest Corner of 67th Avenue and Baseline Road (Ordinance G-6949)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 15, 2021.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-52-08-7
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 10.92

Applicant: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris PLC
Owner: Arrowhead Apts Property Investments LLC
Representative: Adam Baugh, Withey Morris PLC

Proposal:
1. Modification of Stipulation 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 23, 2008.
2. Modification of Stipulation 2 regarding general conformance with the elevations date
stamped October 23, 2008.
3. Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding a comprehensive sign plan.
4. Modification of Stipulation 6 regarding general conformance with the conceptual
landscaping plan date stamped October 23, 2008.
5. Deletion of Stipulation 8 regarding a pedestrian walkway at the corner of Baseline
Road and 67th Avenue.
6. Deletion of Stipulation 15 regarding final elevations for PAD-1.
7. Technical corrections to Stipulations 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 13.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Dec. 13, 2021 and recommended approval with an
additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Dec. 15, 2021 and
recommended denial as filed and approval with modifications and an additional


Page 147

stipulation. See Attachment A for the full list of Planning Hearing Officer
recommended stipulations.

Location
Northwest corner of 67th Avenue and Baseline Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A

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




Page 148
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-52-08-7 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-5293.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the northwest

corner of 67th Avenue and Baseline Road in a portion of Section 36, Township 1

North, Range 1 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”, are hereby

modified to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. That THE development shall be in general conformance with the site plan
date stamped October 23, 2008 DECEMBER 14, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations, and approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department, AND WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING:

A. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE OPEN SPACE CORRIDORS
BETWEEN HOMES WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 26 FEET,
CONSISTING OF MINIMUM 5-FOOT-DEEP PATIOS FOR EACH
HOME AND MINIMUM 16 FEET OF TURF AND LANDSCAPING, AS
DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED DECEMBER 14,
2021.

2. That The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations
date stamped October 23, 2008 DECEMBER 1, 2021, with specific regard to
consistent architectural details, such as stone on all four sides of the



Page 149
buildings, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

3. That Enhanced paving material(s) such as brick, stone, exposed aggregate,
stamped concrete or similar surface material (not asphalt) shall be used at
entrances to the site, intersections internal to the site, and at pedestrian
crossings as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

4. That All pedestrian walkways shall be shaded and connect all commercial
pads to each other and to the public right-of-way, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

5. That a comprehensive sign plan shall be approved for the entire development
in accordance with Section 705 of the Zoning Ordinance in specific regard to
the below items. The sign plan shall be presented and reviewed by the
Laveen Village Planning Committee prior to the Zoning Adjustment hearing
for consideration of their comments.

a. Ground signs limited to monument style not to exceed 6-feet in height.

b. Design and lighting that will minimize impact on the single family parcels
to the east of the subject site.

c. Signage shall utilize designs that are low glare and utilize rural design
elements that are consistent with the submitted elevations dated
October 23, 2008.

5. That The development shall be in general conformance with the conceptual
6. landscaping plan date stamped October 23, 2008 DECEMBER 14, 2021, with
specific regard to enhanced landscaping shown along 67th Avenue, as
approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

6. That The western perimeter wall shall be a minimum 8-feet high and shall
7. include material and textural differences with a decorative element, such as
tile or painted block, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development
Services Department.

7. That a pedestrian walkway utilizing decorative paving materials shall be
8. provided at the corner of Baseline Road and 67th Avenue. The walkway shall
be at grade level with the sidewalk within the right-of-way and shall provide
direct entry into the site at PAD 1. Landscape features shall be provided on
either side of the pedestrian walkway outside of the visibility triangle, as
approved by the Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE MINIMUM ONE PEDESTRIAN
PATHWAY WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE INTERSECTION OF 67TH AVENUE
AND BASELINE ROAD THAT PROVIDES DIRECT CONNECTIVITY
BETWEEN THE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT-



Page 150
OF-WAY, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

TRANSIT

8. That Right-of-way shall be dedicated and a bus bay (detail P1256-1) and
9. transit pad (Detail P1261) constructed along 67th Avenue, as approved by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

ARCHAEOLOGY

9. That The developer shall conduct archaeological monitoring and/or testing by
10. a qualified archaeologist within all areas of the development prior to clearing
and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading, as approved or modified by
the City Archaeologist. Further data recovery may be necessary based on
results of the testing.

STREETS

10. That Right-of-way totaling 60 feet shall be dedicated for the north half of
11. Baseline Road, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

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

12. That Full-service access points to the development shall be limited to 660-foot
13. spacing unless otherwise approved by the Street Transportation Department.
Additional access points may be approved but will be restricted to right-in and
right-out, as approved by the PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

13. That Public multi-use trails shall be constructed within an easement(s) per the
14. Standard Trail Detail (30-foot easement and 10-foot trail) in accordance with
the MAG supplemental detail along 67th Avenue and Baseline Roads as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department. The applicant shall try to
connect the trail across the well site north of the subject site along 67th
Avenue. This connection will not be enforced if the well owner does not agree
to the trail.

15. That the final elevations for PAD-1 (at the southeast corner of the parcel)
including the drive-thru canopy shall be presented to the Laveen Village
Planning Committee for review and comment prior to preliminary site plan
approval by the Development Services Department.




Page 151
14. That The applicant shall notify the following individuals 15 days prior to any of
16. the following events: preliminary site plan review meeting, Zoning Adjustment
hearing or Planning Hearing Officer hearing.

a. Steven Klein
6820 South 66th Avenue
Laveen, AZ 85339

b. Phil Hertel
2300 West Broadway Road
Phoenix, AZ 85041

c. Jon Kimoto
3216 West Ansell Road
Laveen, AZ 85339

d. Stephanie Scovel
7416 South 45th Avenue
Laveen, AZ 85339

15. That Any request to modify or delete stipulations shall be reviewed and
17. commented on by the Laveen Village Planning Committee prior to the
Planning Hearing Officer Hearing.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-5293 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-5293 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site

until all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th day of January,

2022.



Page 152
________________________________
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 153
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21--Z-52-08-7

A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 36,
TOWNSHIP 1 NORTH RANGE 1 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS FOLLOWS:

LOT 11 AND 12 OF RANCHO GRANDE UNO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF
RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 144 OF MAPS, PAGE 12;

TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL;

BEGINNING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 36 FROM
WHENCE THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER LIES NORTH 89 DEGREES, 56
MINUTES, 33 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2630.93 FEET, SAID POINT
BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID
SECTION 36, NORTH 89 DEGREES, 56 MINUTES, 33 SECONDS WEST, A
DISTANCE OF 477.69 FEET;

THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE, NORTH 00 DEGREES, 46 MINUTES, 48
SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 55.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF LOT 11 OF SAID RANCHO GRANDE UNO;

THENCE THENCE ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 11 AND 12, SOUTH 89
DEGREES, 56 MINUTES, 33 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 402.68 FEET TO A
POINT OF CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 19.71 FEET AND A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 90 DEGREES, 50 MINUTES, 32 SECONDS;

THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LOT LINE OF SAID LOT 12,
NORTHEASTERLY ALONG THE ARC A DISTANCE OF 31.25 FEET;

THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 12, NORTH 00 DEGREES, 47
MINUTES, 05 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 840.28 FEET;

THENCE DEPARTING SAID LINE, SOUTH 89 DEGREES, 51 MINUTES, 23
SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 55.01 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 36;

THENCE ALONG SAID LINE, SOUTH 00 DEGREES, 47 MINUTES, 05 SECONDS
EAST, A DISTANCE OF 915.21 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

CONTAINING 476401.40 SQUARE FEET OR 10.9367 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.




Page 154
Page 155



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-1-21--Z-23-
18-8 - Northeast Corner of 16th Street and Polk Street (Ordinance G-6950)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Dec. 15, 2021.

Summary
Application: PHO-1-21--Z-23-18-8
Existing Zoning: WU T5:6 EG
Acreage: 6.24

Applicant: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA
Owner: 16th & Polk LLC
Representative: Ed Bull, Burch & Cracchiolo PA

Proposal:
1. Deletion of Stipulation 4.c regarding on-site security.
2. Deletion of Stipulation 5 regarding cross block access between adjacent streets.
3. Modification of Stipulation 6 regarding detached sidewalks, streetscape
landscaping, and bioswales.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Central City Village
Planning Committee heard this case on Dec. 13, 2021 and recommended approval by
a vote of 10-1.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Dec. 15, 2021 and
recommended approval. See Attachment A for the full list of Planning Hearing Officer
recommended stipulations.

Location
Northeast corner of 16th Street and Polk Street.
Council District: 8
Parcel Address: N/A



Page 156

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




Page 157
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-23-18-8 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6480.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located at the northeast

corner of 16th Street and Polk Street in a portion of Section 3, Township 1 North,

Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Attachment “A”, are hereby modified

to read as set forth below.

STIPULATIONS:

1. The conceptual elevations and site plan shall be administratively approved by
the Planning Hearing Officer prior to preliminary site plan approval with
specific regard to the inclusion of the below elements. This review is for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and requirements
will be determined by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Pedestrian access to the site from 16th Street shall be provided in a
manner which minimizes walking distances from bus stops and the
signalized crossing at Villa Street.

b. Pedestrian access to the site from 16th Street shall connect to the
primary entrance of the medical center building without crossing
vehicular aisles.




Page 158
c. Fencing installed along the street frontages for security purposes shall
be a minimum of 60% view fencing and shall incorporate artistic
elements.

d. The medical clinic (primary building) shall be located adjacent to 16th
Street, and the parking structure shall be located adjacent to 17th
Street.

e. The surface parking area shall be designed with shaded pedestrian
connections to the primary building.

f. All locations where vehicles cross sidewalks shall be designed to
recognize the pedestrian environment. This can be accomplished
through the use of differentiating paving materials, speed stops and/or
pavement markers.

2. There shall be no more than one vehicular entrance from 16th Street.

3. Driveways shall be no greater than 24 feet in width.

4. A minimum of 50% of the required open space shall be located adjacent to
the north property line and shall:

a. Be designed so that it can seamlessly appear to connect to the adjacent
triangular parcel in the event that parcel is developed/improved as a
community open space node.

b. Open space along the northern property line shall not be enclosed by
security fencing for the medical clinic.

c. On-site security shall be responsible for the policing of the publicly-
accessible open space.

5. The required cross block access between 16th Street and 17th Street and
Polk Street and Villa Street shall be located to accommodate the security
needs of the Veterans Affairs Medical Clinic while still providing a clear,
visible, and publicly accessible route between the two streets.

5. Perimeter sidewalks on all street frontages shall be detached, shall not
6. meander, and trees shall be planted on both sides. To the extent possible,
the developer should utilize bioswales for storm water capture on these
frontages.

6. The developer shall install, as approved by the Planning and Development
7. Department:

a. A minimum of 10 inverted-U style bicycle racks for guests, placed near
the building’s primary entrance and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H.4. of the Zoning Ordinance.



Page 159
b. A minimum of 41 secured bicycle parking spaces shall be provided on
site.

7. The developer shall submit a Traffic Impact Study and comply with any
8. required improvements for this development, as approved by the Street
Transportation Department. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted
until the study is reviewed and approved by the City. Contact the Street
Transportation Department at 602-495-7129 to set up a meeting to discuss
the requirements of the study.

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

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

10. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to
11. final site plan approval that Form 7460-1 has been filed for the development
and that the development received a “No Hazard Determination” from the
FAA. If temporary equipment used during construction exceeds the height of
the permanent structure a separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the
FAA and a “No Hazard Determination” obtained prior to the construction start
date.

11. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant
12. 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.

12. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
13. 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.
The applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery
excavations 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.

13. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,
14. 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 160
14. The maximum building height for any stand-alone parking garage shall be
15. limited to 68 feet.

15. Any stand-alone parking garage shall be entirely screened, as approved by
16. the Planning and Development Department.

16. Any stand-alone parking garage shall receive Design Review Committee
17. review and approval prior to preliminary site plan approval.



SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6480 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6480 and as modified in

Section 1 of this Ordinance. Any violation of the stipulation is a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. Building permits shall not be issued for the subject site

until all the stipulations have been met.

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th day of January,

2022.




________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk



Page 161
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 162
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-1-21--Z-23-18-8

Parcel No. 2, as shown on Record of Survey for a Minor Land Division, according to
Book 1546 of Maps, Page 40, records of Maricopa County, Arizona, located in a
portion of the SW4 of Section 3, Township 1 North, Range 3 East of the G&SRB&M.




Page 163
Page 164



Report

(CONTINUED FROM DEC. 15, 2021 AND JAN. 5, 2022) - 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 165

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 166

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 167
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 168
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 169
Page 170
Page 171

   
        

        !!    "




#$  % " &    '  ' (!




Page 172

   
       

       !"##  $ 




%& '  (   "" ) ) *#




Page 173
Page 174
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 175
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 176
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 177
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 178 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 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
















 


 
 











 


 


 








 

 
 
 
 









 

 




 
 

 







 

 












Page 184
ATTACHMENT B




Page 185
Page 186
Page 187
Page 188
Page 189
ATTACHMENT C




Page 190
Page 191
Page 192
Page 193
Page 194
Page 195
Page 196
Page 197
Page 198
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 199
Page 200
Page 201
Page 202



Report

(CONTINUED FROM JAN. 5, 2022) - 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 203

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 204
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 205
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 206
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 207
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 208
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 209
Page 210
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 211
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.

Page 212
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 213
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 214
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 215
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 216
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 217
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 218
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 219
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 220
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 221
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 Page 222
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
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 Page 223
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
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 224
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 225
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 226
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 227
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 228
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 229
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 230
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 231
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 232
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 233
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 234
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 235
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 236
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 237
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 238
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 239
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 240
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 241
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 242
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 243
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 244
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 245
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 246
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 247
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 248
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 249
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 250
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 251
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 252
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 253
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 254
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 255
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 256
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 257
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 258
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 259
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 260
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 261
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 262
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 263
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 264
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 265
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 266
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 267
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 268
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 269
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 270
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 271
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 272








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 273
















(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 274
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 275
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 276
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 277
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 278
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 279
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 280
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 281
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 282













Page2 283
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 284
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 285
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 286


Apedestrian’sview,lookingwestwardonMaryland.Lookcarefully;there’sazoningsignintheresomewhere!:




Page2 287




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 288
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 289
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 290
Sincerely,
LarryWhitesell,CoͲchair
thePEAKNA
602Ͳ370Ͳ8453




Page2 291
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 292
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 293
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 294
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 295
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 296

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 297




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 298
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 299
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 300
Page 301
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 302
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 303
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 304
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 305
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 306

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 307




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 308
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 309
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 310
Page 311
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 312
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 313
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 314
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 315
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 316
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 317
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 318
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 319
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 320
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 321
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 322
Page 323
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 324
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 325
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ




Page 326
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 327



       




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 328
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 329
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 330
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 331
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 332
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 333
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 334
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 335
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 336
Attachment H - Revised




Page 337
1/5/2022




Page 338
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 339
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 340
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 341
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 342
Page 343
ORDINANCE G-6943

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-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,

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:




Page 344
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.

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.




-2- Ordinance G-6943

Page 345
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.




-3- Ordinance G-6943

Page 346
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th 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)



PL:tml:LF21-2833:1-26-2022:2296348v1




-4- Ordinance G-6943

Page 347
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




-5- Ordinance G-6943

Page 348
Page 349




-6- Ordinance G-6943