Meeting phoenix-pdf-2022-02-02 complete
2022-02-02 · Formal Meeting
Items: 78
Formal Meeting
Item text
Liquor License - Bashas' #113
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070037.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
731 E. Union Hills Drive
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 9
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Bashas' #113
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #113
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 10
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #113
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Restaurant 12 11 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 74.89 60.72
Violent Crimes 9.21 12.10 8.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 65
Total Violations 96 110
Page 11
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6167001 2030 75 % 6% 6%
6168001 1293 91 % 0% 17 %
6168003 1491 94 % 17 % 5%
6189001 1603 54 % 10 % 6%
6189002 1451 82 % 0% 28 %
6190001 681 88 % 10 % 7%
6190002 1340 91 % 0% 9%
6190003 974 61 % 17 % 6%
6191002 617 22 % 45 % 19 %
6192002 1223 0% 15 % 29 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 12
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #113
731 E UNION HILLS DR
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 13
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070037.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
731 E. Union Hills Drive
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 9
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Bashas' #113
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #113
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 10
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #113
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Restaurant 12 11 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 74.89 60.72
Violent Crimes 9.21 12.10 8.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 65
Total Violations 96 110
Page 11
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
6167001 2030 75 % 6% 6%
6168001 1293 91 % 0% 17 %
6168003 1491 94 % 17 % 5%
6189001 1603 54 % 10 % 6%
6189002 1451 82 % 0% 28 %
6190001 681 88 % 10 % 7%
6190002 1340 91 % 0% 9%
6190003 974 61 % 17 % 6%
6191002 617 22 % 45 % 19 %
6192002 1223 0% 15 % 29 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 12
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #113
731 E UNION HILLS DR
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 13
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #104
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070737.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3202 E. Greenway Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-2 SP
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 14
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #104
Liquor License Map - Food City #104
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 15
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #104
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 7 2
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 70.14 71.12
Violent Crimes 9.21 15.71 14.64
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 96
Total Violations 96 188
Page 16
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033021 1993 86 % 0% 41 %
1033023 1946 82 % 2% 19 %
1033031 1578 87 % 10 % 14 %
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033033 1037 75 % 23 % 0%
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
1033043 1952 26 % 28 % 48 %
1033062 2272 17 % 22 % 37 %
1035012 999 80 % 8% 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 17
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #104
3202 E GREENWAY RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 18
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070737.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3202 E. Greenway Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-2 SP
Council District: 2
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 14
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #104
Liquor License Map - Food City #104
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 15
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #104
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 2
Restaurant 12 7 2
Club 14 1 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 70.14 71.12
Violent Crimes 9.21 15.71 14.64
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 96
Total Violations 96 188
Page 16
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033021 1993 86 % 0% 41 %
1033023 1946 82 % 2% 19 %
1033031 1578 87 % 10 % 14 %
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033033 1037 75 % 23 % 0%
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
1033043 1952 26 % 28 % 48 %
1033062 2272 17 % 22 % 37 %
1035012 999 80 % 8% 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 17
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #104
3202 E GREENWAY RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 18
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Kitsune Brewing Company
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174725.
Summary
Applicant
Tyler Smith, Agent
License Type
Series 3 - Microbrewery
Location
3321 E. Bell Road, Ste. B-05
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a microbrewery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open in April 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As someone who has worked in the spiritous liquor space for the past two years and
opened stores for Nike across the world I feel that my ability to judge and keep a safe
space is something i pride myself on. I have also already acquired my Title 4 serving
and management.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Breweries are a wonderful way to bring new business into an area. When done right a
Microbrewery can bring in new investors in the community as well people filling leasing
spaces around the brewery. I believe the community will be excited to have a new
place with a fresh high end feeling on 32nd St and Bell.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Kitsune Brewing Company
Liquor License Map - Kitsune Brewing Company
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 2
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Restaurant 12 15 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 64.70 80.04
Violent Crimes 9.21 15.28 12.42
*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 56 77
Total Violations 96 136
Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033031 1578 87 % 10 % 14 %
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033033 1037 75 % 23 % 0%
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
6195003 2362 65 % 14 % 8%
6196001 2094 72 % 11 % 3%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 22
Liquor License Map: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
3321 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 23
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174725.
Summary
Applicant
Tyler Smith, Agent
License Type
Series 3 - Microbrewery
Location
3321 E. Bell Road, Ste. B-05
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a microbrewery. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open in April 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 19
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“As someone who has worked in the spiritous liquor space for the past two years and
opened stores for Nike across the world I feel that my ability to judge and keep a safe
space is something i pride myself on. I have also already acquired my Title 4 serving
and management.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Breweries are a wonderful way to bring new business into an area. When done right a
Microbrewery can bring in new investors in the community as well people filling leasing
spaces around the brewery. I believe the community will be excited to have a new
place with a fresh high end feeling on 32nd St and Bell.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Kitsune Brewing Company
Liquor License Map - Kitsune Brewing Company
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 20
Liquor License Data: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 2
Liquor Store 9 6 4
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Restaurant 12 15 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 64.70 80.04
Violent Crimes 9.21 15.28 12.42
*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 56 77
Total Violations 96 136
Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1033031 1578 87 % 10 % 14 %
1033032 1103 78 % 9% 18 %
1033033 1037 75 % 23 % 0%
1033041 1926 47 % 13 % 34 %
1033042 1219 2% 16 % 38 %
6195003 2362 65 % 14 % 8%
6196001 2094 72 % 11 % 3%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 22
Liquor License Map: KITSUNE BREWING COMPANY
3321 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 23
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Bashas' #15
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070741.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
10631 N. 32nd St.
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 3
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 24
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Bashas' #15
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #15
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 25
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #15
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 9 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 28.55 42.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 3.15 5.09
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 19
Total Violations 96 30
Page 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1048011 1972 96 % 7% 8%
1048021 941 84 % 0% 4%
1048025 888 4% 7% 24 %
1049002 1133 88 % 3% 13 %
1049003 2131 84 % 6% 2%
1051011 1042 100 % 7% 7%
1051013 1549 100 % 4% 1%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 27
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #15
10631 N 32ND ST
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 28
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070741.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
10631 N. 32nd St.
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 3
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 24
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Bashas' #15
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #15
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 25
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #15
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 3 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 9 8
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 28.55 42.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 3.15 5.09
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 19
Total Violations 96 30
Page 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1048011 1972 96 % 7% 8%
1048021 941 84 % 0% 4%
1048025 888 4% 7% 24 %
1049002 1133 88 % 3% 13 %
1049003 2131 84 % 6% 2%
1051011 1042 100 % 7% 7%
1051013 1549 100 % 4% 1%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 27
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #15
10631 N 32ND ST
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 28
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Barrow Neurological Foundation
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Erika Shafer
Location
2910 N. 3rd Ave., 5th Floor
Council District: 4
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 4, 2022 - 5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 400 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 29
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Erika Shafer
Location
2910 N. 3rd Ave., 5th Floor
Council District: 4
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 4, 2022 - 5:30 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 400 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 29
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Willo Neighborhood Association
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Linda Doescher
Location
301 W. Holly St.
Council District: 4
Function
Community Event
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 19, 2022 - 4 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 350 attendees
Feb. 20, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. / 300 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 30
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Linda Doescher
Location
301 W. Holly St.
Council District: 4
Function
Community Event
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 19, 2022 - 4 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. / 350 attendees
Feb. 20, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. / 300 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 30
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - AJ's #64
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 07070287.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
5017 N. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 31
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - AJ's #64
Liquor License Map - AJ's #64
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #64
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 14 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 10
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 56 27
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 118.20 114.43
Violent Crimes 9.21 19.37 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 58
Total Violations 96 117
Page 33
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 34
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #64
5017 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 35
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 07070287.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 7 - Beer and Wine Bar
Location
5017 N. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 31
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - AJ's #64
Liquor License Map - AJ's #64
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 32
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #64
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 14 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 10
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 56 27
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 118.20 114.43
Violent Crimes 9.21 19.37 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 58
Total Violations 96 117
Page 33
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 34
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #64
5017 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 35
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - AJ's #64
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070253.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5017 N. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 36
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - AJ's #64
Liquor License Map - AJ's #64
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 37
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #64
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 14 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 10
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 56 27
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 118.20 114.43
Violent Crimes 9.21 19.37 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 58
Total Violations 96 117
Page 38
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 39
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #64
5017 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 40
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070253.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5017 N. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 36
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - AJ's #64
Liquor License Map - AJ's #64
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 37
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #64
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 2
Bar 6 14 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 10
Liquor Store 9 6 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 56 27
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 118.20 114.43
Violent Crimes 9.21 19.37 15.92
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 58
Total Violations 96 117
Page 38
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1086023 650 23 % 34 % 15 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 39
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #64
5017 N CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 40
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Chars Live
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070527.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4631 N. 7th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 41
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"The new owners of Chars own and operate many businesses here in Arizona. They
are experienced in operating successful businesses. The owners have also received
basic and management liquor law training and will have their staff trained as well to
ensure compliance with all liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Chars has been a staple of this community for more than 25 years. The new owners
wish to continue on with this legacy. A great neighborhood spot with good music for
years to come.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Chars Live
Liquor License Map - Chars Live
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 42
Liquor License Data: CHARS LIVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 0
Bar 6 14 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 4
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 39 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 160 193.84
Violent Crimes 9.21 32.08 32.80
*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 57 134
Total Violations 97 256
Page 43
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1074002 1009 62 % 7% 16 %
1074005 661 0% 30 % 77 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1089011 988 36 % 15 % 30 %
1089012 1297 31 % 23 % 54 %
1089023 1072 28 % 3% 47 %
1089024 1278 46 % 9% 21 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
1171002 703 57 % 27 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 44
Liquor License Map: CHARS LIVE
4631 N 7TH AVE
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 45
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070527.
Summary
Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent
License Type
Series 6 - Bar
Location
4631 N. 7th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This location was
previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Page 41
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"The new owners of Chars own and operate many businesses here in Arizona. They
are experienced in operating successful businesses. The owners have also received
basic and management liquor law training and will have their staff trained as well to
ensure compliance with all liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Chars has been a staple of this community for more than 25 years. The new owners
wish to continue on with this legacy. A great neighborhood spot with good music for
years to come.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Chars Live
Liquor License Map - Chars Live
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 42
Liquor License Data: CHARS LIVE
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 0
Bar 6 14 8
Beer and Wine Bar 7 11 4
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 39 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 160 193.84
Violent Crimes 9.21 32.08 32.80
*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 57 134
Total Violations 97 256
Page 43
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1074002 1009 62 % 7% 16 %
1074005 661 0% 30 % 77 %
1075003 1599 46 % 15 % 14 %
1088021 1456 23 % 32 % 31 %
1088022 435 43 % 41 % 19 %
1089011 988 36 % 15 % 30 %
1089012 1297 31 % 23 % 54 %
1089023 1072 28 % 3% 47 %
1089024 1278 46 % 9% 21 %
1171001 2126 10 % 15 % 10 %
1171002 703 57 % 27 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 44
Liquor License Map: CHARS LIVE
4631 N 7TH AVE
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 45
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Flaming Pig
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174974.
Summary
Applicant
Ashley Fuedan De Castro, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1534 W. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 12, 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 46
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, all the owners, have attended and holder of Title 4 Basic Liquor Law Training
Certificate of Completion. We are committed to insure the adherence to City of
Phoenix and State laws. We will have strict policies in place and will be in-lined with
the Arizona Liquor License Law regarding liquor serving and sales.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We at Flaming Pig will offer our customers "grill your own" filipino style barbeque on
their table, the best authentic filipino food, and the world famous filipino hospitality. We
would serve alcoholic beverage if the customer prefer to have one. Our patrons will
enjoy a full service restaurant and great experience."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Flaming Pig
Liquor License Map - Flaming Pig
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 47
Liquor License Data: FLAMING PIG
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 10 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 16 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 256.44 250.63
Violent Crimes 9.21 47.16 81.52
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 154
Total Violations 96 312
Page 48
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1073002 1165 57 % 16 % 22 %
1074001 1280 80 % 4% 15 %
1074002 1009 62 % 7% 16 %
1074003 839 0% 6% 56 %
1074004 1382 20 % 26 % 30 %
1074005 661 0% 30 % 77 %
1074006 2186 16 % 13 % 53 %
1089021 1258 16 % 12 % 49 %
1089022 1250 42 % 26 % 22 %
1089023 1072 28 % 3% 47 %
1089024 1278 46 % 9% 21 %
1090021 1571 18 % 15 % 41 %
1090023 622 62 % 39 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 49
Liquor License Map: FLAMING PIG
1534 W CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 50
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174974.
Summary
Applicant
Ashley Fuedan De Castro, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
1534 W. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 12, 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 46
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, all the owners, have attended and holder of Title 4 Basic Liquor Law Training
Certificate of Completion. We are committed to insure the adherence to City of
Phoenix and State laws. We will have strict policies in place and will be in-lined with
the Arizona Liquor License Law regarding liquor serving and sales.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We at Flaming Pig will offer our customers "grill your own" filipino style barbeque on
their table, the best authentic filipino food, and the world famous filipino hospitality. We
would serve alcoholic beverage if the customer prefer to have one. Our patrons will
enjoy a full service restaurant and great experience."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Flaming Pig
Liquor License Map - Flaming Pig
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 47
Liquor License Data: FLAMING PIG
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 10 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 16 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 256.44 250.63
Violent Crimes 9.21 47.16 81.52
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 154
Total Violations 96 312
Page 48
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1073002 1165 57 % 16 % 22 %
1074001 1280 80 % 4% 15 %
1074002 1009 62 % 7% 16 %
1074003 839 0% 6% 56 %
1074004 1382 20 % 26 % 30 %
1074005 661 0% 30 % 77 %
1074006 2186 16 % 13 % 53 %
1089021 1258 16 % 12 % 49 %
1089022 1250 42 % 26 % 22 %
1089023 1072 28 % 3% 47 %
1089024 1278 46 % 9% 21 %
1090021 1571 18 % 15 % 41 %
1090023 622 62 % 39 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 49
Liquor License Map: FLAMING PIG
1534 W CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 50
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #94
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070644.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3442 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 51
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #94
Liquor License Map - Food City #94
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 52
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #94
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 111.86 168.15
Violent Crimes 9.21 28.31 44.05
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 63
Total Violations 96 136
Page 53
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1126021 1923 35 % 25 % 58 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1127001 1882 54 % 0% 25 %
1127002 1540 50 % 25 % 56 %
1127003 2056 26 % 21 % 34 %
1145001 1332 59 % 11 % 24 %
1145002 1343 38 % 29 % 52 %
1146001 2149 47 % 16 % 45 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 54
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #94
3442 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 55
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070644.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3442 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-3
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 51
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #94
Liquor License Map - Food City #94
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 52
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #94
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 111.86 168.15
Violent Crimes 9.21 28.31 44.05
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 63
Total Violations 96 136
Page 53
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1126021 1923 35 % 25 % 58 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1127001 1882 54 % 0% 25 %
1127002 1540 50 % 25 % 56 %
1127003 2056 26 % 21 % 34 %
1145001 1332 59 % 11 % 24 %
1145002 1343 38 % 29 % 52 %
1146001 2149 47 % 16 % 45 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 54
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #94
3442 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 55
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #95
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070415.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
1940 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-2 SP
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 56
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #95
Liquor License Map - Food City #95
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 57
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #95
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Restaurant 12 8 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 186.70 223.35
Violent Crimes 9.21 58.78 61.25
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 196
Total Violations 96 360
Page 58
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1089013 956 82 % 4% 8%
1089022 1250 42 % 26 % 22 %
1090023 622 62 % 39 % 4%
1090031 2380 23 % 26 % 52 %
1090032 1204 16 % 30 % 56 %
1090034 583 5% 26 % 49 %
1104004 1344 49 % 16 % 20 %
1170001 2247 42 % 14 % 25 %
1170002 1845 32 % 9% 34 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 59
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #95
1940 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 60
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070415.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
1940 W. Indian School Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and C-2 SP
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 56
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #95
Liquor License Map - Food City #95
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 57
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #95
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Bar 6 3 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Restaurant 12 8 4
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 186.70 223.35
Violent Crimes 9.21 58.78 61.25
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 196
Total Violations 96 360
Page 58
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1089013 956 82 % 4% 8%
1089022 1250 42 % 26 % 22 %
1090023 622 62 % 39 % 4%
1090031 2380 23 % 26 % 52 %
1090032 1204 16 % 30 % 56 %
1090034 583 5% 26 % 49 %
1104004 1344 49 % 16 % 20 %
1170001 2247 42 % 14 % 25 %
1170002 1845 32 % 9% 34 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 59
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #95
1940 W INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 60
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #103
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070651.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4239 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 10
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 61
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #103
Liquor License Map - Food City #103
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 62
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #103
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 13 0
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 5
Restaurant 12 3 2
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 152.83 264.86
Violent Crimes 9.21 36.73 50.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 51
Total Violations 96 118
Page 63
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1122012 2059 55 % 21 % 17 %
1122021 1490 26 % 16 % 53 %
1122022 1392 55 % 15 % 14 %
1123011 2466 11 % 19 % 42 %
1123013 1748 71 % 0% 13 %
1125071 760 40 % 40 % 36 %
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
1126011 1000 2% 22 % 56 %
1126012 1987 42 % 16 % 47 %
1126021 1923 35 % 25 % 58 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1126023 1658 88 % 0% 64 %
1126024 1959 57 % 2% 47 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 64
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #103
4239 W MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 65
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070651.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4239 W. McDowell Road, Ste. 10
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 61
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #103
Liquor License Map - Food City #103
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 62
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #103
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 13 0
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 5
Restaurant 12 3 2
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 152.83 264.86
Violent Crimes 9.21 36.73 50.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 51
Total Violations 96 118
Page 63
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1122012 2059 55 % 21 % 17 %
1122021 1490 26 % 16 % 53 %
1122022 1392 55 % 15 % 14 %
1123011 2466 11 % 19 % 42 %
1123013 1748 71 % 0% 13 %
1125071 760 40 % 40 % 36 %
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
1126011 1000 2% 22 % 56 %
1126012 1987 42 % 16 % 47 %
1126021 1923 35 % 25 % 58 %
1126022 1581 27 % 12 % 44 %
1126023 1658 88 % 0% 64 %
1126024 1959 57 % 2% 47 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 64
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #103
4239 W MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 65
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #135
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070119.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5114 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 66
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Food City #135
Liquor License Map - Food City #135
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 67
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #135
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 2 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 4 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 139.14 224.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 35.27 69.53
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 259
Total Violations 96 445
Page 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1123012 2098 68 % 7% 47 %
1123013 1748 71 % 0% 13 %
1123021 1045 48 % 24 % 28 %
1124013 1653 64 % 17 % 20 %
1124021 1777 93 % 11 % 31 %
1124022 1531 76 % 21 % 27 %
1124023 1203 68 % 17 % 35 %
1125071 760 40 % 40 % 36 %
1125072 1489 2% 11 % 57 %
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 69
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #135
5114 W MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 70
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070119.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5114 W. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 66
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Food City #135
Liquor License Map - Food City #135
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 67
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #135
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 2 0
Bar 6 2 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 4 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Hotel 11 1 1
Restaurant 12 4 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 139.14 224.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 35.27 69.53
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 259
Total Violations 96 445
Page 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1123012 2098 68 % 7% 47 %
1123013 1748 71 % 0% 13 %
1123021 1045 48 % 24 % 28 %
1124013 1653 64 % 17 % 20 %
1124021 1777 93 % 11 % 31 %
1124022 1531 76 % 21 % 27 %
1124023 1203 68 % 17 % 35 %
1125071 760 40 % 40 % 36 %
1125072 1489 2% 11 % 57 %
1125121 1518 14 % 36 % 22 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 69
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #135
5114 W MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 70
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Knights of Columbus Cathedral Council 12708
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Richard Garrison
Location
6351 N. 27th Ave.
Council District: 5
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 25, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 450 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 71
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Richard Garrison
Location
6351 N. 27th Ave.
Council District: 5
Function
Dinner
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 25, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 450 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 71
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #105
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070255.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3514 W. Glendale Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 72
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include that sale of
packaged alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply
with all state and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the
existing operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom
are experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City
of Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location, Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #105
Liquor License Map - Food City #105
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 73
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #105
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 152.65 167.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 22.13 34.07
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 175
Total Violations 97 366
Page 74
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1058001 1575 74 % 8% 13 %
1058002 1458 81 % 9% 36 %
1058003 1156 78 % 20 % 11 %
1059002 2227 70 % 11 % 22 %
1069004 2444 60 % 3% 27 %
1070001 1623 80 % 6% 32 %
1070004 1777 58 % 24 % 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #105
3514 W GLENDALE AVE
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070255.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3514 W. Glendale Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 72
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include that sale of
packaged alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply
with all state and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the
existing operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom
are experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City
of Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location, Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #105
Liquor License Map - Food City #105
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 73
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #105
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4
Restaurant 12 3 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 152.65 167.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 22.13 34.07
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 175
Total Violations 97 366
Page 74
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1058001 1575 74 % 8% 13 %
1058002 1458 81 % 9% 36 %
1058003 1156 78 % 20 % 11 %
1059002 2227 70 % 11 % 22 %
1069004 2444 60 % 3% 27 %
1070001 1623 80 % 6% 32 %
1070004 1777 58 % 24 % 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 75
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #105
3514 W GLENDALE AVE
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 76
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Godspeed Fuel LLC
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 169114.
Summary
Applicant
Sathyan Suganya, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
2740 W. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 11, 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 77
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I will not misuse it and will use it only for legal & business reasons. I will conduct
business within the limitations of law.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will use the liquor license to legally run my gas station & convenience store. I have
also registered with the city of phoenix Police department.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Godspeed Fuel LLC
Liquor License Map - Godspeed Fuel LLC
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: GODSPEED FUEL LLC
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Restaurant 12 6 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 158.41 198.08
Violent Crimes 9.21 40.20 59.23
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 97
Total Violations 96 200
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1055011 1055 38 % 6% 59 %
1055012 1442 0% 11 % 38 %
1056011 2072 66 % 5% 23 %
1056012 1895 76 % 6% 27 %
1056021 2042 80 % 0% 26 %
1059001 1697 50 % 0% 42 %
1059003 1609 59 % 5% 25 %
1060011 1487 31 % 17 % 50 %
1060021 1678 27 % 14 % 27 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: GODSPEED FUEL LLC
2740 W NORTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 169114.
Summary
Applicant
Sathyan Suganya, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
2740 W. Northern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 11, 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 77
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I will not misuse it and will use it only for legal & business reasons. I will conduct
business within the limitations of law.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will use the liquor license to legally run my gas station & convenience store. I have
also registered with the city of phoenix Police department.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Godspeed Fuel LLC
Liquor License Map - Godspeed Fuel LLC
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 78
Liquor License Data: GODSPEED FUEL LLC
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 3 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 1
Liquor Store 9 2 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Restaurant 12 6 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 158.41 198.08
Violent Crimes 9.21 40.20 59.23
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 97
Total Violations 96 200
Page 79
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1055011 1055 38 % 6% 59 %
1055012 1442 0% 11 % 38 %
1056011 2072 66 % 5% 23 %
1056012 1895 76 % 6% 27 %
1056021 2042 80 % 0% 26 %
1059001 1697 50 % 0% 42 %
1059003 1609 59 % 5% 25 %
1060011 1487 31 % 17 % 50 %
1060021 1678 27 % 14 % 27 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 80
Liquor License Map: GODSPEED FUEL LLC
2740 W NORTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 81
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - 7-Eleven #21040F
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170382.
Summary
Applicant
Vaneet Sapra, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
5135 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with
an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 13, 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 82
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am currently the franchisee and responsible operator for multiple 7-Eleven
convenience stores. I have been a 7-Eleven franchisee since 2006 and have
completed an extensive corporate training program regarding the operation of 7-
Eleven stores and have completed basic and management liquor training by an
authorized trainer, as required by Arizona liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been a 7-Eleven store for many years. I will operate the store in the
same responsible manner as my other stores and with the high standards required of 7
-Eleven franchisees. I plan to continue to provide quality service to the neighbors of
this store, and to the general public which they have enjoyed and have come to rely on
for many years.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - 7-Eleven #21040F
Liquor License Map - 7-Eleven #21040F
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 83
Liquor License Data: 7-ELEVEN #21040F
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 0
Liquor Store 9 3 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Restaurant 12 6 0
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 74.41 87.04
Violent Crimes 9.21 10.19 16.13
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 62
Total Violations 96 95
Page 84
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%
1111001 1149 81 % 11 % 6%
1111002 1188 43 % 27 % 26 %
1111003 2317 84 % 11 % 8%
1112011 963 27 % 29 % 11 %
1112012 1138 48 % 13 % 4%
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112014 620 63 % 23 % 3%
1112041 1729 11 % 32 % 19 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: 7-ELEVEN #21040F
5135 E THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 12/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170382.
Summary
Applicant
Vaneet Sapra, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
5135 E. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with
an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 13, 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 82
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This information is not provided due to the multiple ownership interests held by the
applicant in the State of Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am currently the franchisee and responsible operator for multiple 7-Eleven
convenience stores. I have been a 7-Eleven franchisee since 2006 and have
completed an extensive corporate training program regarding the operation of 7-
Eleven stores and have completed basic and management liquor training by an
authorized trainer, as required by Arizona liquor laws.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been a 7-Eleven store for many years. I will operate the store in the
same responsible manner as my other stores and with the high standards required of 7
-Eleven franchisees. I plan to continue to provide quality service to the neighbors of
this store, and to the general public which they have enjoyed and have come to rely on
for many years.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - 7-Eleven #21040F
Liquor License Map - 7-Eleven #21040F
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 83
Liquor License Data: 7-ELEVEN #21040F
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 0
Liquor Store 9 3 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Restaurant 12 6 0
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 74.41 87.04
Violent Crimes 9.21 10.19 16.13
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 62
Total Violations 96 95
Page 84
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1110005 698 88 % 19 % 5%
1111001 1149 81 % 11 % 6%
1111002 1188 43 % 27 % 26 %
1111003 2317 84 % 11 % 8%
1112011 963 27 % 29 % 11 %
1112012 1138 48 % 13 % 4%
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112014 620 63 % 23 % 3%
1112041 1729 11 % 32 % 19 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 85
Liquor License Map: 7-ELEVEN #21040F
5135 E THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 12/22/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 86
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - AJ'S #159
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070659.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4430 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: PAD- 4
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 87
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - AJ'S #159
Liquor License Map - AJ'S #159
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 88
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #159
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 0
Restaurant 12 16 7
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 33.12 47.23
Violent Crimes 9.21 2.65 3.07
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 7
Total Violations 97 13
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1079001 1112 98 % 11 % 5%
1079002 1436 98 % 17 % 7%
1079003 1457 31 % 6% 6%
1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%
1082001 717 56 % 23 % 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 89
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #159
4430 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 90
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070659.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4430 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: PAD- 4
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 87
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - AJ'S #159
Liquor License Map - AJ'S #159
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 88
Liquor License Data: AJ'S #159
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 0
Restaurant 12 16 7
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 33.12 47.23
Violent Crimes 9.21 2.65 3.07
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 7
Total Violations 97 13
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1079001 1112 98 % 11 % 5%
1079002 1436 98 % 17 % 7%
1079003 1457 31 % 6% 6%
1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%
1082001 717 56 % 23 % 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 89
Liquor License Map: AJ'S #159
4430 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 90
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Bashas' #11
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070039.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4855 E. Warner Road
Zoning Classification: C-1 and C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 91
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Bashas' #11
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #11
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 92
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #11
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 5 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3
Liquor Store 9 10 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 25 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 52.89 60.08
Violent Crimes 9.21 5.01 8.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 4
Total Violations 97 6
Page 93
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167081 1516 88 % 0% 2%
1167082 1243 52 % 3% 17 %
1167083 1314 34 % 0% 7%
1167111 758 80 % 4% 15 %
1167171 1769 0% 25 % 11 %
1167172 1663 40 % 18 % 17 %
1167181 2685 40 % 10 % 9%
3199101 2488 92 % 3% 12 %
8100001 1870 83 % 10 % 0%
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 94
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #11
4855 E WARNER RD
Ü
Date: 1/19/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 95
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070039.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4855 E. Warner Road
Zoning Classification: C-1 and C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 91
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Bashas' #11
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #11
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 92
Liquor License Data: BASHAS' #11
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 5 2
Beer and Wine Bar 7 6 3
Liquor Store 9 10 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 4 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 25 6
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 52.89 60.08
Violent Crimes 9.21 5.01 8.49
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 4
Total Violations 97 6
Page 93
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1167081 1516 88 % 0% 2%
1167082 1243 52 % 3% 17 %
1167083 1314 34 % 0% 7%
1167111 758 80 % 4% 15 %
1167171 1769 0% 25 % 11 %
1167172 1663 40 % 18 % 17 %
1167181 2685 40 % 10 % 9%
3199101 2488 92 % 3% 12 %
8100001 1870 83 % 10 % 0%
8104002 314 3% 25 % 12 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 94
Liquor License Map: BASHAS' #11
4855 E WARNER RD
Ü
Date: 1/19/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 95
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Bashas' #158
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070660.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5555 N. 7th St., Ste. 130
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 96
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Bashas' #158
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #158
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 97
Liquor License Data: BASHAS #158
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 0
Bar 6 8 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 0
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 50 18
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 91.85 95.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 11.75 10.82
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 52
Total Violations 96 88
Page 98
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1065012 1594 61 % 18 % 32 %
1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1076011 319 65 % 16 % 46 %
1076012 904 38 % 24 % 23 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1076021 1311 82 % 0% 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 99
Liquor License Map: BASHAS #158
5555 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 100
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070660.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
5555 N. 7th St., Ste. 130
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 96
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
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 - Bashas' #158
Liquor License Map - Bashas' #158
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 97
Liquor License Data: BASHAS #158
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 2 0
Bar 6 8 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 12 0
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 1
Restaurant 12 50 18
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 91.85 95.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 11.75 10.82
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 52
Total Violations 96 88
Page 98
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1065012 1594 61 % 18 % 32 %
1066002 2064 83 % 7% 5%
1075001 758 80 % 2% 3%
1075002 1458 74 % 7% 15 %
1076011 319 65 % 16 % 46 %
1076012 904 38 % 24 % 23 %
1076013 1748 38 % 8% 17 %
1076021 1311 82 % 0% 6%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 99
Liquor License Map: BASHAS #158
5555 N 7TH ST
Ü
Date: 12/20/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 100
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Mr. Moto Pizza
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175142.
Summary
Applicant
Jared Repinski, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3945 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb.13, 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 101
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been representing liquor licensed establishments in Arizona for over 15 years.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bar, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”
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 - Mr. Moto Pizza
Liquor License Map - Mr. Moto Pizza
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 102
Liquor License Data: MR. MOTO PIZZA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 22 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 51.64 63.16
Violent Crimes 9.21 4 7
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 12
Total Violations 97 24
Page 103
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051033 1364 100 % 22 % 0%
1079003 1457 31 % 6% 6%
1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%
1082001 717 56 % 23 % 6%
1083011 1100 89 % 14 % 0%
1083012 1221 72 % 5% 1%
1083013 982 75 % 18 % 1%
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 104
Liquor License Map: MR. MOTO PIZZA
3945 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 1/25/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 105
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175142.
Summary
Applicant
Jared Repinski, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
3945 E. Camelback Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb.13, 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 101
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have been representing liquor licensed establishments in Arizona for over 15 years.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Tourism plays an important role in our local economy and liquor licensed
establishments (the sale of alcohol) is a very important aspect of tourism. Therefore, if
the City of Phoenix continues to lead the State of Arizona by approving quality and
diverse businesses (restaurants, bar, microbreweries, distilleries, hotels, resorts, golf
courses, special events, convenience / grocery stores & gas stations) similar to this
proposed liquor licensed business, all businesses will prosper.”
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 - Mr. Moto Pizza
Liquor License Map - Mr. Moto Pizza
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 102
Liquor License Data: MR. MOTO PIZZA
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 1
Liquor Store 9 3 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 5 2
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 22 10
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 51.64 63.16
Violent Crimes 9.21 4 7
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 12
Total Violations 97 24
Page 103
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1051033 1364 100 % 22 % 0%
1079003 1457 31 % 6% 6%
1081001 1849 78 % 1% 7%
1082001 717 56 % 23 % 6%
1083011 1100 89 % 14 % 0%
1083012 1221 72 % 5% 1%
1083013 982 75 % 18 % 1%
1083022 1824 50 % 13 % 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 104
Liquor License Map: MR. MOTO PIZZA
3945 E CAMELBACK RD
Ü
Date: 1/25/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 105
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #107
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070269.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
7227 S. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 106
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #107
Liquor License Map - Food City #107
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 107
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #107
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 2
Restaurant 12 8 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 113.98 137.89
Violent Crimes 9.21 22.16 26.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 63
Total Violations 97 116
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1164003 2842 74 % 0% 15 %
1165001 1778 66 % 2% 27 %
1165002 1487 84 % 7% 31 %
1165003 1504 65 % 6% 15 %
1167023 2617 48 % 12 % 28 %
1167031 2524 69 % 15 % 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 108
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #107
7227 S CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 109
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070269.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
7227 S. Central Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 106
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #107
Liquor License Map - Food City #107
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 107
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #107
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 9 2
Restaurant 12 8 5
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 113.98 137.89
Violent Crimes 9.21 22.16 26.32
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 63
Total Violations 97 116
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1164003 2842 74 % 0% 15 %
1165001 1778 66 % 2% 27 %
1165002 1487 84 % 7% 31 %
1165003 1504 65 % 6% 15 %
1167023 2617 48 % 12 % 28 %
1167031 2524 69 % 15 % 26 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 108
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #107
7227 S CENTRAL AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 109
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #132
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070117.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2709 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 110
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #132
Liquor License Map - Food City #132
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 111
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #132
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 9 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 111.41 157.53
Violent Crimes 9.21 28.84 43.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 86
Total Violations 96 153
Page 112
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1127001 1882 54 % 0% 25 %
1127002 1540 50 % 25 % 56 %
1127003 2056 26 % 21 % 34 %
1144011 1953 47 % 11 % 38 %
1145001 1332 59 % 11 % 24 %
1145002 1343 38 % 29 % 52 %
1145003 1018 42 % 15 % 57 %
1168001 1178 33 % 22 % 40 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 113
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #132
2709 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 12/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 114
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070117.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2709 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: C-3
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 110
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #132
Liquor License Map - Food City #132
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 111
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #132
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 9 0
Bar 6 1 0
Liquor Store 9 3 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 8 2
Restaurant 12 2 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 111.41 157.53
Violent Crimes 9.21 28.84 43.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 86
Total Violations 96 153
Page 112
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1127001 1882 54 % 0% 25 %
1127002 1540 50 % 25 % 56 %
1127003 2056 26 % 21 % 34 %
1144011 1953 47 % 11 % 38 %
1145001 1332 59 % 11 % 24 %
1145002 1343 38 % 29 % 52 %
1145003 1018 42 % 15 % 57 %
1168001 1178 33 % 22 % 40 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 113
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #132
2709 W VAN BUREN ST
Ü
Date: 12/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 114
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #140
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070372.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6544 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 115
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #140
Liquor License Map - Food City #140
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 116
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #140
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Government 5 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Restaurant 12 7 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 128.18 139.27
Violent Crimes 9.21 30.97 37.47
*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 57 116
Total Violations 98 212
Page 117
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1097012 1978 48 % 28 % 49 %
1097013 2163 56 % 0% 22 %
1098011 2356 56 % 15 % 23 %
1098012 1791 69 % 12 % 53 %
1098022 1443 66 % 8% 42 %
1098023 952 82 % 14 % 50 %
1125031 2179 75 % 21 % 19 %
1125041 1741 90 % 17 % 25 %
1125042 1274 0% 24 % 61 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 118
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #140
6544 W THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 1/13/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 119
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070372.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6544 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 115
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #140
Liquor License Map - Food City #140
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 116
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #140
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Government 5 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 4 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Restaurant 12 7 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 128.18 139.27
Violent Crimes 9.21 30.97 37.47
*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 57 116
Total Violations 98 212
Page 117
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1097012 1978 48 % 28 % 49 %
1097013 2163 56 % 0% 22 %
1098011 2356 56 % 15 % 23 %
1098012 1791 69 % 12 % 53 %
1098022 1443 66 % 8% 42 %
1098023 952 82 % 14 % 50 %
1125031 2179 75 % 21 % 19 %
1125041 1741 90 % 17 % 25 %
1125042 1274 0% 24 % 61 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 118
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #140
6544 W THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 1/13/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 119
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #154
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070647.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
9020 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 120
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #154
Liquor License Map - Food City #154
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 121
Page 122
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #154
9020 W THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 123
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070647.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
9020 W. Thomas Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 120
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #154
Liquor License Map - Food City #154
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 121
Page 122
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #154
9020 W THOMAS RD
Ü
Date: 12/17/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 123
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #162
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070618.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
845 W. Southern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 124
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of +' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are experienced
with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #162
Liquor License Map - Food City #162
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 125
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #162
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 17 2
Restaurant 12 6 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 156.23 166.13
Violent Crimes 9.21 30.97 36.73
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 139
Total Violations 96 200
Page 126
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1157001 2689 65 % 7% 23 %
1157003 2039 51 % 20 % 33 %
1158022 1536 47 % 17 % 24 %
1165001 1778 66 % 2% 27 %
1165002 1487 84 % 7% 31 %
1166021 4695 66 % 10 % 35 %
1166022 3218 73 % 6% 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 127
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #162
845 W SOUTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 128
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070618.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
845 W. Southern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 7
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 124
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of +' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are experienced
with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exist at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #162
Liquor License Map - Food City #162
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 125
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #162
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 8 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 17 2
Restaurant 12 6 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 156.23 166.13
Violent Crimes 9.21 30.97 36.73
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 139
Total Violations 96 200
Page 126
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1157001 2689 65 % 7% 23 %
1157003 2039 51 % 20 % 33 %
1158022 1536 47 % 17 % 24 %
1165001 1778 66 % 2% 27 %
1165002 1487 84 % 7% 31 %
1166021 4695 66 % 10 % 35 %
1166022 3218 73 % 6% 10 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 127
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #162
845 W SOUTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 128
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Pride Incorporated
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Ryan Starzyk
Location
115 N. 6th St.
Council District: 8
Function
Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 30, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. / 10,000 attendees
May 1, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. / 10,000 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 129
Report
Request for a Series 15 - Special Event liquor license for the temporary sale of all
liquors.
Summary
Applicant
Ryan Starzyk
Location
115 N. 6th St.
Council District: 8
Function
Festival
Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 30, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. / 10,000 attendees
May 1, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. / 10,000 attendees
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 129
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #12
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070034.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2124 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and PSC
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 130
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #12
Liquor License Map - Food City #12
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 131
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #12
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 6 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Restaurant 12 12 6
Craft Distiller 18 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 117.56 99.57
Violent Crimes 9.21 36.41 22.08
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 74
Total Violations 96 131
Page 132
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1115011 2020 44 % 16 % 43 %
1116011 1492 55 % 13 % 39 %
1116012 1200 65 % 11 % 40 %
1116022 2607 54 % 9% 61 %
1133001 2490 40 % 12 % 49 %
1133003 901 22 % 23 % 72 %
1135011 2332 25 % 12 % 55 %
1135012 1738 41 % 26 % 36 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 133
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #12
2124 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 134
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070034.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
2124 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 and PSC
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 130
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #12
Liquor License Map - Food City #12
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 131
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #12
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 1 0
Bar 6 6 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 1
Liquor Store 9 6 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 3
Restaurant 12 12 6
Craft Distiller 18 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 117.56 99.57
Violent Crimes 9.21 36.41 22.08
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 74
Total Violations 96 131
Page 132
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1115011 2020 44 % 16 % 43 %
1116011 1492 55 % 13 % 39 %
1116012 1200 65 % 11 % 40 %
1116022 2607 54 % 9% 61 %
1133001 2490 40 % 12 % 49 %
1133003 901 22 % 23 % 72 %
1135011 2332 25 % 12 % 55 %
1135012 1738 41 % 26 % 36 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 133
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #12
2124 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/16/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 134
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #143
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070616.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4430 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb.9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 135
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #143
Liquor License Map - Food City #143
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 136
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #143
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 6 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Hotel 11 4 2
Restaurant 12 5 0
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 139.14 173.56
Violent Crimes 9.21 27.68 40.55
*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 57 138
Total Violations 97 233
Page 137
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112021 1913 6% 18 % 38 %
1113001 960 42 % 9% 7%
1113002 930 52 % 7% 20 %
1113003 1474 15 % 13 % 39 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
1113005 886 21 % 23 % 5%
1137001 634 0% 38 % 26 %
1137003 1101 31 % 18 % 11 %
1137004 2372 7% 27 % 43 %
1137005 1280 14 % 32 % 52 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 138
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #143
4430 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 139
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070616.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4430 E. McDowell Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb.9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 135
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #143
Liquor License Map - Food City #143
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 136
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #143
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 6 3
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 10 3
Hotel 11 4 2
Restaurant 12 5 0
Club 14 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 139.14 173.56
Violent Crimes 9.21 27.68 40.55
*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 57 138
Total Violations 97 233
Page 137
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1112013 2473 34 % 14 % 37 %
1112021 1913 6% 18 % 38 %
1113001 960 42 % 9% 7%
1113002 930 52 % 7% 20 %
1113003 1474 15 % 13 % 39 %
1113004 703 87 % 31 % 15 %
1113005 886 21 % 23 % 5%
1137001 634 0% 38 % 26 %
1137003 1101 31 % 18 % 11 %
1137004 2372 7% 27 % 43 %
1137005 1280 14 % 32 % 52 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 138
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #143
4430 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 1/14/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 139
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #148
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070632.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3205 E. McDowell Road, Ste. 28
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 140
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in the ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at
this location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to
safely and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their
neighborhood supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #148
Liquor License Map - Food City #148
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 141
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #148
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 1
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 138.42 164.96
Violent Crimes 9.21 40.36 42.67
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 152
Total Violations 96 280
Page 142
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1114012 2000 67 % 23 % 29 %
1114022 2120 45 % 17 % 31 %
1115011 2020 44 % 16 % 43 %
1115023 1245 32 % 14 % 50 %
1115024 1708 40 % 25 % 53 %
1135011 2332 25 % 12 % 55 %
1135012 1738 41 % 26 % 36 %
1135021 2383 35 % 21 % 39 %
1136011 1911 16 % 21 % 11 %
1136012 1471 36 % 14 % 49 %
1136021 1061 49 % 11 % 53 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 143
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #148
3205 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 144
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070632.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
3205 E. McDowell Road, Ste. 28
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 140
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in the ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at
this location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to
safely and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their
neighborhood supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #148
Liquor License Map - Food City #148
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 141
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #148
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 1
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0
Liquor Store 9 5 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 2
Restaurant 12 4 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 138.42 164.96
Violent Crimes 9.21 40.36 42.67
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 152
Total Violations 96 280
Page 142
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1114012 2000 67 % 23 % 29 %
1114022 2120 45 % 17 % 31 %
1115011 2020 44 % 16 % 43 %
1115023 1245 32 % 14 % 50 %
1115024 1708 40 % 25 % 53 %
1135011 2332 25 % 12 % 55 %
1135012 1738 41 % 26 % 36 %
1135021 2383 35 % 21 % 39 %
1136011 1911 16 % 21 % 11 %
1136012 1471 36 % 14 % 49 %
1136021 1061 49 % 11 % 53 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 143
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #148
3205 E MCDOWELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/15/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 144
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #149
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070631.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6025 N. 27th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 145
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of the
packaged alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply
with all state and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the
existing operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom
are experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City
of Phoenix.".”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #149
Liquor License Map - Food City #149
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 146
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #149
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 2
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 6
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 8 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 192.30 208.06
Violent Crimes 9.21 44.82 63.37
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 219
Total Violations 96 334
Page 147
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1068012 1670 5% 28 % 55 %
1068013 1083 30 % 20 % 33 %
1068022 1105 85 % 21 % 1%
1069001 1043 81 % 11 % 4%
1069002 2629 71 % 5% 22 %
1072022 2085 62 % 5% 22 %
1073001 2203 79 % 3% 6%
1073004 2614 23 % 5% 31 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 148
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #149
6025 N 27TH AVE
Ü
Date: 12/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 149
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070631.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
6025 N. 27th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-1
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 145
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of the
packaged alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply
with all state and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the
existing operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom
are experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City
of Phoenix.".”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
location. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
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 - Food City #149
Liquor License Map - Food City #149
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 146
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #149
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 4 2
Liquor Store 9 6 3
Beer and Wine Store 10 13 6
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 8 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 192.30 208.06
Violent Crimes 9.21 44.82 63.37
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 219
Total Violations 96 334
Page 147
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1068012 1670 5% 28 % 55 %
1068013 1083 30 % 20 % 33 %
1068022 1105 85 % 21 % 1%
1069001 1043 81 % 11 % 4%
1069002 2629 71 % 5% 22 %
1072022 2085 62 % 5% 22 %
1073001 2203 79 % 3% 6%
1073004 2614 23 % 5% 31 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 148
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #149
6025 N 27TH AVE
Ü
Date: 12/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 149
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Food City #152
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070643.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4727 E. Southern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 150
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #152
Liquor License Map - Food City #152
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 151
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #152
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 1
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 36.09 42.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 8.14 9.97
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 126
Total Violations 96 170
Page 152
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1162021 1187 94 % 0% 39 %
1162022 1836 62 % 0% 20 %
1162023 1215 57 % 6% 37 %
1162041 1426 79 % 6% 24 %
1162042 1819 57 % 0% 32 %
1162043 535 59 % 24 % 8%
1162052 1024 85 % 4% 26 %
3197031 1479 51 % 11 % 13 %
3197032 602 81 % 30 % 11 %
3197033 2085 30 % 14 % 34 %
3197041 1777 42 % 9% 20 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 153
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #152
4727 E SOUTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 154
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070643.
Summary
Applicant
Michael Basha, Agent
License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store
Location
4727 E. Southern Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for an ownership transfer of a liquor license for a grocery 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 Feb. 9, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 150
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:
“Raley's Arizona, LLC is a community supermarket that operates over 126
supermarkets in two states. These supermarkets typically include the sale of packaged
alcoholic beverages. Its employees and managers are trained to comply with all state
and municipal liquor laws. Further, Raley's Arizona, LLC is purchasing the existing
operations of Bashas' Inc., including its assets and employees, all of whom are
experienced with the lawful sale of alcohol within the State of Arizona and the City of
Phoenix.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This supermarket provides a one-stop source for the community's grocery needs. This
is merely a change in ownership of the existing supermarket that currently exists at this
locations. Issuance of a liquor license will allow members of the community to safely
and responsibly purchase packaged alcoholic beverages from their neighborhood
supermarket."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Food City #152
Liquor License Map - Food City #152
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 151
Liquor License Data: FOOD CITY #152
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Wholesaler 4 1 1
Bar 6 1 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 0
Liquor Store 9 4 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 7 4
Hotel 11 1 0
Restaurant 12 5 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 36.09 42.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 8.14 9.97
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 126
Total Violations 96 170
Page 152
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1162021 1187 94 % 0% 39 %
1162022 1836 62 % 0% 20 %
1162023 1215 57 % 6% 37 %
1162041 1426 79 % 6% 24 %
1162042 1819 57 % 0% 32 %
1162043 535 59 % 24 % 8%
1162052 1024 85 % 4% 26 %
3197031 1479 51 % 11 % 13 %
3197032 602 81 % 30 % 11 %
3197033 2085 30 % 14 % 34 %
3197041 1777 42 % 9% 20 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 153
Liquor License Map: FOOD CITY #152
4727 E SOUTHERN AVE
Ü
Date: 12/14/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 154
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Milk & Honey
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174906.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
333 E. Roosevelt St., Ste. 114
Zoning Classification: DTC-West Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow liquor retail sales. This business is
currently under construction with plans to open in April 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb.12, 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 155
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Milk & Honey (Series 10)
115 W. 6th St., Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: In June 2018, a fine of $3,000 was paid for failure to request
ID from an underage buyer and for selling, giving or furnishing an underage person
with alcohol. In December 2019, a fine of $6,000 was paid for failure to request ID from
an underage buyer and for selling, giving or furnishing an underage person with
alcohol.
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 make sure our employees attend the Title 4 liquor law training courses.”
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 to offer customers a one stop convenience store in the area.”
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 - Milk & Honey
Liquor License Map - Milk & Honey
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 157
Liquor License Data: MILK & HONEY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 5
Bar 6 45 13
Beer and Wine Bar 7 16 7
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Hotel 11 8 4
Restaurant 12 101 41
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 169.93 211.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 42.27 50.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 101
Total Violations 96 184
Page 158
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 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 159
Liquor License Map: MILK & HONEY
333 E ROOSEVELT ST
Ü
Date: 12/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 160
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174906.
Summary
Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
333 E. Roosevelt St., Ste. 114
Zoning Classification: DTC-West Evans Churchill
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that does not sell gas.
This location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This location requires a Use Permit to allow liquor retail sales. This business is
currently under construction with plans to open in April 2022.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb.12, 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 155
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations
on file with the AZ Department of Liquor Licenses and Control and, for locations within
the boundaries of Phoenix, the number of aggregate calls for police service within the
last 12 months for the address listed.
Milk & Honey (Series 10)
115 W. 6th St., Tempe
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: In June 2018, a fine of $3,000 was paid for failure to request
ID from an underage buyer and for selling, giving or furnishing an underage person
with alcohol. In December 2019, a fine of $6,000 was paid for failure to request ID from
an underage buyer and for selling, giving or furnishing an underage person with
alcohol.
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 make sure our employees attend the Title 4 liquor law training courses.”
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 to offer customers a one stop convenience store in the area.”
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 - Milk & Honey
Liquor License Map - Milk & Honey
Page 156
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 157
Liquor License Data: MILK & HONEY
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Microbrewery 3 3 1
Wholesaler 4 1 0
Government 5 8 5
Bar 6 45 13
Beer and Wine Bar 7 16 7
Liquor Store 9 4 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4
Hotel 11 8 4
Restaurant 12 101 41
Club 14 2 0
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 169.93 211.99
Violent Crimes 9.21 42.27 50.63
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 101
Total Violations 96 184
Page 158
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 %
1132032 638 28 % 7% 70 %
1141001 2299 16 % 37 % 44 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 159
Liquor License Map: MILK & HONEY
333 E ROOSEVELT ST
Ü
Date: 12/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 160
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Super Star Car Wash & Chevron Gas
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175230.
Summary
Applicant
Reza Amirrezvani, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1905 W. Baseline Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 161
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:
“Our owners currently own and operate several liquor licensed businesses in Arizona.
We are responsible with our businesses and our beer and wine sales. We have also
been trained in Arizona liquor laws to ensure compliance in sales of alcoholic
beverages.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We take pride in what we do and work hard to create lifelong customers who
recognise and trust our brand. We also take pride in our communities well beyond
washing cars. We donate and partner with many local nonprofit organizations. We
provide a full service experience with our one stop shop to get everything you need in
this convenient location."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Super Star Car Wash & Chevron Gas
Liquor License Map - Super Star Car Wash & Chevron Gas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 162
Liquor License Data: SUPER STAR CAR WASH &
CHEVRON GAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 1 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 54.16 76.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 7.90 9.66
*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 42
Total Violations 97 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1166022 3218 73 % 6% 10 %
1166131 1193 81 % 0% 1%
1166132 1388 49 % 0% 31 %
1166133 1862 95 % 14 % 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 163
Liquor License Map: SUPER STAR CAR WASH & CHEVRON GAS
1905 W BASELINE RD
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 164
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175230.
Summary
Applicant
Reza Amirrezvani, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1905 W. Baseline Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 14, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 161
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:
“Our owners currently own and operate several liquor licensed businesses in Arizona.
We are responsible with our businesses and our beer and wine sales. We have also
been trained in Arizona liquor laws to ensure compliance in sales of alcoholic
beverages.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We take pride in what we do and work hard to create lifelong customers who
recognise and trust our brand. We also take pride in our communities well beyond
washing cars. We donate and partner with many local nonprofit organizations. We
provide a full service experience with our one stop shop to get everything you need in
this convenient location."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Super Star Car Wash & Chevron Gas
Liquor License Map - Super Star Car Wash & Chevron Gas
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 162
Liquor License Data: SUPER STAR CAR WASH &
CHEVRON GAS
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Liquor Store 9 1 1
Beer and Wine Store 10 3 2
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 54.16 76.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 7.90 9.66
*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 42
Total Violations 97 68
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1166022 3218 73 % 6% 10 %
1166131 1193 81 % 0% 1%
1166132 1388 49 % 0% 31 %
1166133 1862 95 % 14 % 9%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 163
Liquor License Map: SUPER STAR CAR WASH & CHEVRON GAS
1905 W BASELINE RD
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 164
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - Kasai Asian Grill
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170670.
Summary
Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
14344 N. Scottsdale Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 11, 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 165
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"1) I currently have over 200 + licenses that I am agent on. 2) Day to day manager has
certified & approved Title IV liquor training. 3) Any & all disclosures pertaining to
capability & reliability have been made.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are a high end Japanese & teppan steakhouse restaurant and we would like to
offer alcoholic beverages to those that desire to enhance their dinning experience with
us.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Kasai Asian Grill
Liquor License Map - Kasai Asian Grill
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 166
Liquor License Data: KASAI ASIAN GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Wholesaler 4 6 4
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 1
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 49 16
Craft Distiller 18 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 13.19 24.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 0.74 0.95
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 16
Total Violations 96 22
Page 167
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032072 1401 93 % 2% 0%
1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
1032203 1161 0% 16 % 7%
2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 168
Liquor License Map: KASAI ASIAN GRILL
14344 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Ü
Date: 12/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 169
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 170670.
Summary
Applicant
Kevin Kramber, Agent
License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant
Location
14344 N. Scottsdale Road
Zoning Classification: C-2 PCD
Council District: 2
This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was previously
licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 11, 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 165
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
"1) I currently have over 200 + licenses that I am agent on. 2) Day to day manager has
certified & approved Title IV liquor training. 3) Any & all disclosures pertaining to
capability & reliability have been made.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“We are a high end Japanese & teppan steakhouse restaurant and we would like to
offer alcoholic beverages to those that desire to enhance their dinning experience with
us.”
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - Kasai Asian Grill
Liquor License Map - Kasai Asian Grill
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 166
Liquor License Data: KASAI ASIAN GRILL
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Producer 1 1 0
Wholesaler 4 6 4
Bar 6 1 1
Beer and Wine Bar 7 5 1
Liquor Store 9 1 0
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 1
Hotel 11 2 0
Restaurant 12 49 16
Craft Distiller 18 1 1
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 13.19 24.62
Violent Crimes 9.21 0.74 0.95
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 56 16
Total Violations 96 22
Page 167
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1032072 1401 93 % 2% 0%
1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %
1032201 1364 95 % 15 % 3%
1032202 513 51 % 32 % 4%
1032203 1161 0% 16 % 7%
2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 168
Liquor License Map: KASAI ASIAN GRILL
14344 N SCOTTSDALE RD
Ü
Date: 12/21/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 169
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Liquor License - ARCO #42301
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175428.
Summary
Applicant
Moshe Shlomo, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1602 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 15, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 170
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold this liquor license because I
have studied and familiarized myself with Arizona liquor laws and intend to adhere to
them. I am a firm believer that laws and limitations put in place are for the publics
safety. I will up-hold the liquor laws because I care about this community and people in
general.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will serve the best interest of the public with the issuance of this liquor license
because I will make sure that my staff and employees follow all of Arizona liquor laws
to ensure that the public safety and well being are always top priority."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - ARCO #42301
Liquor License Map - ARCO #42301
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 171
Liquor License Data: ARCO #42301
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 9 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 83.65 102.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 11.54 13.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 88
Total Violations 97 171
Page 172
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036062 854 90 % 13 % 4%
1036063 2174 78 % 13 % 25 %
1036111 1396 66 % 14 % 3%
6190002 1340 91 % 0% 9%
6192001 1053 20 % 23 % 17 %
6192003 2370 48 % 17 % 12 %
6193001 1220 87 % 12 % 14 %
6194001 1068 54 % 32 % 9%
6194002 1484 18 % 18 % 8%
6194003 1151 79 % 9% 31 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 173
Liquor License Map: ARCO #42301
1602 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 174
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48297) (Items 38-40)
Ordinance S-48297 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.
38 Western Towing of Phoenix, Inc. dba Western Towing
For $15,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 148443 for
Arizona State Fair towing services to relocate vehicles or property from
illegal parking areas for the Police Department. The Arizona State Fair is
held annually during the month of October. Additional funds are being
requested, as the actual need for services has been greater than originally
estimated. The service is essential to the Police Department and the
mandated Arizona Revised Statutes, Phoenix City Codes and department
policies to tow vehicles.
39 Settlement of Claim(s) Purrington v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $300,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Purrington v. City of Phoenix, 18-0786-001, AU, PD, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of property damage claim arising from a motor vehicle
accident on Oct. 30, 2018, involving the Police Department.
40 Settlement of Claim(s) Berber v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $72,700.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Berber
v. City of Phoenix, 20-0718-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of
Page 175
property damage claim arising from a water main break on Jan. 6, 2021,
involving the Water Services Department.
Page 176
Report
Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175428.
Summary
Applicant
Moshe Shlomo, Agent
License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store
Location
1602 E. Bell Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3
This request is for a new liquor license for a convenience store that sells gas. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.
The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 15, 2022.
Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, a spirituous liquor license shall be issued only after
satisfactory showing of the capability, qualifications and reliability of the applicant and
that the public convenience and the best interest of the community will be substantially
served by the issuance. If an application is filed for the issuance of a license for a
location, that on the date the application is filed has a valid license of the same series
issued at that location, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the public
convenience and best interest of the community at that location was established at the
time the location was previously licensed. The presumption shall not apply once the
licensed location has not been in use for more than 180 days.
Page 170
Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
This applicant does not hold an interest in any other active liquor license in the State of
Arizona.
Public Opinion
No protest or support letters were received within the 20-day public comment period.
Applicant’s Statement
The applicant submitted the following statement in support of this application. Spelling,
grammar and punctuation in the statement are shown exactly as written by the
applicant on the City Questionnaire.
I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold this liquor license because I
have studied and familiarized myself with Arizona liquor laws and intend to adhere to
them. I am a firm believer that laws and limitations put in place are for the publics
safety. I will up-hold the liquor laws because I care about this community and people in
general.”
The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I will serve the best interest of the public with the issuance of this liquor license
because I will make sure that my staff and employees follow all of Arizona liquor laws
to ensure that the public safety and well being are always top priority."
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on a Finance Department
recommendation for disapproval.
Attachments
Liquor License Data - ARCO #42301
Liquor License Map - ARCO #42301
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 171
Liquor License Data: ARCO #42301
Liquor License
Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile
Bar 6 2 0
Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 2
Liquor Store 9 2 2
Beer and Wine Store 10 6 3
Restaurant 12 9 3
Crime Data
Description Average * 1 Mile Average ** 1/2 Mile Average***
Property Crimes 48.77 83.65 102.22
Violent Crimes 9.21 11.54 13.69
*Citywide average per square mile **Average per square mile within 1 mile radius ***Average per square mile within ½ mile radius
Property Violation Data
Description Average 1/2 Mile Average
Parcels w/Violations 57 88
Total Violations 97 171
Page 172
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius
BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty
1036062 854 90 % 13 % 4%
1036063 2174 78 % 13 % 25 %
1036111 1396 66 % 14 % 3%
6190002 1340 91 % 0% 9%
6192001 1053 20 % 23 % 17 %
6192003 2370 48 % 17 % 12 %
6193001 1220 87 % 12 % 14 %
6194001 1068 54 % 32 % 9%
6194002 1484 18 % 18 % 8%
6194003 1151 79 % 9% 31 %
Average 61 % 13 % 19 %
Page 173
Liquor License Map: ARCO #42301
1602 E BELL RD
Ü
Date: 12/29/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi
City Clerk Department
Page 174
PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48297) (Items 38-40)
Ordinance S-48297 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.
38 Western Towing of Phoenix, Inc. dba Western Towing
For $15,000.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 148443 for
Arizona State Fair towing services to relocate vehicles or property from
illegal parking areas for the Police Department. The Arizona State Fair is
held annually during the month of October. Additional funds are being
requested, as the actual need for services has been greater than originally
estimated. The service is essential to the Police Department and the
mandated Arizona Revised Statutes, Phoenix City Codes and department
policies to tow vehicles.
39 Settlement of Claim(s) Purrington v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $300,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Purrington v. City of Phoenix, 18-0786-001, AU, PD, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of property damage claim arising from a motor vehicle
accident on Oct. 30, 2018, involving the Police Department.
40 Settlement of Claim(s) Berber v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $72,700.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Berber
v. City of Phoenix, 20-0718-001, GL, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of
Page 175
property damage claim arising from a water main break on Jan. 6, 2021,
involving the Water Services Department.
Page 176
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Proposed 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation (Ordinance S-48316)
Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation.
Further request to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until
municipal zoning is applied to the annexed territory.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Nick Wood, Esq., with Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-471
regarding annexation. The City Clerk Department has received signed petitions
representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of the owners,
excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.
Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on Jan. 5, 2022, to allow the City Council to gather
community comment regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public
hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at
least three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by
first-class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcels 210-10-
008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-008F and 210-10-008G, located at 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road (Attachment A). The annexation area is approximately 5.24 acres
(0.0080 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is 11 individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 177
ATTACHMENT A
Page 178
Report
Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road Annexation.
Further request to authorize current Maricopa County zoning to continue in effect until
municipal zoning is applied to the annexed territory.
Summary
The annexation was requested by Nick Wood, Esq., with Snell & Wilmer L.L.P., for the
purpose of receiving City of Phoenix services. The proposed annexation conforms to
current City policies and complies with Arizona Revised Statutes section 9-471
regarding annexation. The City Clerk Department has received signed petitions
representing 100 percent of the assessed value and 100 percent of the owners,
excluding utilities, within the proposed annexation area.
Public Outreach
A public hearing was conducted on Jan. 5, 2022, to allow the City Council to gather
community comment regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public
hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at
least three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by
first-class mail was sent to each property owner in the area proposed to be annexed.
Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcels 210-10-
008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-008F and 210-10-008G, located at 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road (Attachment A). The annexation area is approximately 5.24 acres
(0.0080 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is 11 individuals.
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the City Clerk
Department.
Page 177
ATTACHMENT A
Page 178
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Catalog Enrichment Services - Requirements Contract - RFP 16-141 (A)
(Ordinance S-48299)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 143027 with Baker & Taylor, LLC for Catalog Enrichment
Services for the City of Phoenix Public Library use. 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 Contractor provides Catalog Enrichment Services to the City of Phoenix Library
Department. The Library provides access to over 1.6 million online catalogs for public
use. The online catalogs (standard and mobile) are searched approximately 2.5 million
times each month.
The current contract is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2022. The City is working on a
new procurement process; an extension is necessary in order to ensure City services
are not interrupted during completion of the new procurement process.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through June 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $45,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $166,894. Funds are available in the Library Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on July 6, 2016.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Page 179
Report
(Ordinance S-48299)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 143027 with Baker & Taylor, LLC for Catalog Enrichment
Services for the City of Phoenix Public Library use. 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 Contractor provides Catalog Enrichment Services to the City of Phoenix Library
Department. The Library provides access to over 1.6 million online catalogs for public
use. The online catalogs (standard and mobile) are searched approximately 2.5 million
times each month.
The current contract is scheduled to expire on June 30, 2022. The City is working on a
new procurement process; an extension is necessary in order to ensure City services
are not interrupted during completion of the new procurement process.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through June 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $45,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $166,894. Funds are available in the Library Department's
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on July 6, 2016.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Library
Department.
Page 179
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Authorization to Amend Lease 135425 with Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. to Extend
Term (Ordinance S-48300)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Lease Agreement 135425 with Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., doing business as The
Arizona Republic, to extend the lease term for a three-year period and to add two one-
year options to extend. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all
funds related to this item.
Summary
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. currently leases 71 square feet of interior office space on
the 11th floor of Phoenix City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St. through Jan. 31,
2022. The lease agreement will be amended to extend the term for a three-year period
and to add two one-year options to extend. Base rent during the first year of the three-
year extension is $161.83 per month, plus applicable taxes, which is within the range
of market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. Base rent will increase by
three percent each year thereafter. Each option period will be exercised upon mutual
agreement of the City and Phoenix Newspapers. Phoenix Newspapers is a long-term
tenant in good standing.
Contract Term
This amendment will extend the lease agreement from Jan. 31, 2022, for a three-year
term, plus two additional one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Revenue during the first year of the extension period will be $1,941.96 per year, plus
applicable taxes.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 135425 (Ordinance S-39522) on Feb. 1, 2013; and
· Agreement 135425 - Amendment (Ordinance S-44234) on Jan. 24, 2018.
Page 180
Location
200 W. Washington St., 11th Floor.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Karen
Peters and the Finance and Public Works departments.
Page 181
Report
Term (Ordinance S-48300)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Lease Agreement 135425 with Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., doing business as The
Arizona Republic, to extend the lease term for a three-year period and to add two one-
year options to extend. Further request to authorize the City Treasurer to accept all
funds related to this item.
Summary
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc. currently leases 71 square feet of interior office space on
the 11th floor of Phoenix City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St. through Jan. 31,
2022. The lease agreement will be amended to extend the term for a three-year period
and to add two one-year options to extend. Base rent during the first year of the three-
year extension is $161.83 per month, plus applicable taxes, which is within the range
of market rents as determined by the Real Estate Division. Base rent will increase by
three percent each year thereafter. Each option period will be exercised upon mutual
agreement of the City and Phoenix Newspapers. Phoenix Newspapers is a long-term
tenant in good standing.
Contract Term
This amendment will extend the lease agreement from Jan. 31, 2022, for a three-year
term, plus two additional one-year options to extend.
Financial Impact
Revenue during the first year of the extension period will be $1,941.96 per year, plus
applicable taxes.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 135425 (Ordinance S-39522) on Feb. 1, 2013; and
· Agreement 135425 - Amendment (Ordinance S-44234) on Jan. 24, 2018.
Page 180
Location
200 W. Washington St., 11th Floor.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Karen
Peters and the Finance and Public Works departments.
Page 181
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Grant of Public Utility Easement on City-owned Property at 6539 N. 43rd Ave.
(Ordinance S-48301)
Request City Council to grant a public utility easement, for consideration of $1.00
and/or other valuable consideration, for the installation of an underground distribution
electrical line to a City facility on City-owned property within the Salt River Project
(SRP) service area; and further ordering the Ordinance recorded. This easement is
needed to provide utilities for renovations at the West Plaza Park located at 6539 N.
43rd Ave.
Summary
This public utility easement will be for the area more fully described in the legal
description ("Easement Premises") recorded with the ordinance and will be granted to
all public service corporations, agricultural improvement districts, and
telecommunication corporations providing utility service to the property located at 6539
N. 43rd Ave. (collectively "Grantee") for an indefinite period, subject to the following
terms and conditions:
A. Grantee is hereby granted the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair,
operate and maintain utility facilities together with appurtenant fixtures for use in
connection therewith (collectively "Grantee Facilities") to, through, across and
beyond Grantor's property within the Easement Premises. Subject to the notice
requirements provided in paragraph "I," Grantee shall at all times have the right of
full and free ingress and egress to and along the Easement Premises for the
purposes herein specified. Grantee acknowledges and accepts that Grantee shall
share the Easement Premises with other Grantees and shall use such Easement
Premises with other Grantees in accordance with and consistent with industry
standards and customs for shared use. Grantor agrees to coordinate the location of
Grantee's Facilities within the Easement Premises and to pay costs for relocation of
Grantee's Facilities as provided in paragraph "F."
B. Grantor shall not locate, erect or construct, or permit to be located or erected or
constructed, any building or structure within the limits of the Easement Premises.
However, Grantor reserves all other rights, interests, and uses of the Easement
Premises that are not inconsistent with Grantee's easement rights herein conveyed
and which do not interfere with or endanger any of the Grantee Facilities.
Page 182
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall not have the right to lower by more
than one foot or raise by more than two feet the surface grade of Easement
Premises without the prior written consent by the Grantee whose facilities will be
affected by the change of elevation.
C. Grantee shall not have the right to use the Easement Premises to store gasoline or
petroleum products, hazardous or toxic substances, or flammable materials;
provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to any material, equipment or
substance contained in, or a part of, the Grantee Facilities, provided that Grantee
must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in
connection therewith. Additionally, the Easement Premises may not be used for the
storage of construction-related materials or to park or store construction-related
vehicles or equipment except on a temporary basis to construct, reconstruct,
replace, repair, operate or maintain the Grantee Facilities.
D. Grantor shall maintain an appropriate three-foot clear area around all edges of all
equipment pads for Grantee Facilities in addition to a clear operational area that
extends 12 feet immediately in front of all transformer or switching cabinet
openings, within the Easement Premises. No obstruction, trees, shrubs, fixtures or
permanent structures shall be placed or permitted by Grantor within said areas.
Grantee is hereby granted the right to trim, prune, cut, and clear away trees, brush,
shrubs or other obstruction within said areas.
E. Grantee shall exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the Easement Premises
and all improvements thereon and agrees that following any work or use by Grantee
within the Easement Premises, the affected area, including without limitation, all
pavement, landscaping, concrete and other improvements permitted within the
Easement Premises pursuant to this easement will be restored by Grantee to as
close to original condition as is reasonably possible, at the expense of Grantee.
F. Grantor reserves the right to require the relocation of Grantee Facilities to a new
location within Grantor's property; provided however, that: (1) Grantor pays the
entire cost of redesigning and relocating existing Grantee Facilities to the new
location; and (2) Grantor provides Grantee with a new and substantially similar
public utility easement at no cost to Grantee. After relocation of Grantee Facilities to
the new easement area, Grantee shall abandon its rights to use the Easement
Premises granted in this easement without cost or consequence to Grantor.
G. Each public service corporation and telecommunication services corporation as a
Grantee shall coordinate and work with other Grantees in the use of the Easement
Premises. In the event that a third party or other Grantee requests the relocation of
existing Grantee Facilities to a new location (whether or not) within the Easement
Premises, the requesting party shall pay the entire cost of redesigning and
relocating the existing Grantee Facilities.
H. Grantee shall not have the right to transfer, convey or assign its interests in this
easement to any individual, corporation or other entity without the prior written
Page 183
consent of Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantee
shall notify Grantor of any proposed transfer, conveyance or assignment of any
rights granted herein at address listed below.
I. Except in emergencies or exigent circumstances such as service restoration,
Grantee agrees to contact Grantor at least one business day prior to Grantee's
entrance onto the Easement Premises where the Easement Premises are located:
(1) on a site that includes Aviation Department facilities; (2) water and wastewater
treatment facilities; (3) Police Department headquarters located at 620 W.
Washington St.; (4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S. 12th St.; (5)
City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St.; (6) City Court Building located at 300 W.
Washington St.; (7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W. Washington St.; (8)
Transit Operations Center located at 320 N. 1st Ave. or West Transit Facility located
at 405 N. 79th Ave.; or (9) in a secured or fenced area.
Location
6539 N. 43rd Ave., identified by Maricopa County assessor parcel number 152-31-146.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 184
Report
(Ordinance S-48301)
Request City Council to grant a public utility easement, for consideration of $1.00
and/or other valuable consideration, for the installation of an underground distribution
electrical line to a City facility on City-owned property within the Salt River Project
(SRP) service area; and further ordering the Ordinance recorded. This easement is
needed to provide utilities for renovations at the West Plaza Park located at 6539 N.
43rd Ave.
Summary
This public utility easement will be for the area more fully described in the legal
description ("Easement Premises") recorded with the ordinance and will be granted to
all public service corporations, agricultural improvement districts, and
telecommunication corporations providing utility service to the property located at 6539
N. 43rd Ave. (collectively "Grantee") for an indefinite period, subject to the following
terms and conditions:
A. Grantee is hereby granted the right to construct, reconstruct, replace, repair,
operate and maintain utility facilities together with appurtenant fixtures for use in
connection therewith (collectively "Grantee Facilities") to, through, across and
beyond Grantor's property within the Easement Premises. Subject to the notice
requirements provided in paragraph "I," Grantee shall at all times have the right of
full and free ingress and egress to and along the Easement Premises for the
purposes herein specified. Grantee acknowledges and accepts that Grantee shall
share the Easement Premises with other Grantees and shall use such Easement
Premises with other Grantees in accordance with and consistent with industry
standards and customs for shared use. Grantor agrees to coordinate the location of
Grantee's Facilities within the Easement Premises and to pay costs for relocation of
Grantee's Facilities as provided in paragraph "F."
B. Grantor shall not locate, erect or construct, or permit to be located or erected or
constructed, any building or structure within the limits of the Easement Premises.
However, Grantor reserves all other rights, interests, and uses of the Easement
Premises that are not inconsistent with Grantee's easement rights herein conveyed
and which do not interfere with or endanger any of the Grantee Facilities.
Page 182
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall not have the right to lower by more
than one foot or raise by more than two feet the surface grade of Easement
Premises without the prior written consent by the Grantee whose facilities will be
affected by the change of elevation.
C. Grantee shall not have the right to use the Easement Premises to store gasoline or
petroleum products, hazardous or toxic substances, or flammable materials;
provided however, that this prohibition shall not apply to any material, equipment or
substance contained in, or a part of, the Grantee Facilities, provided that Grantee
must comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations in
connection therewith. Additionally, the Easement Premises may not be used for the
storage of construction-related materials or to park or store construction-related
vehicles or equipment except on a temporary basis to construct, reconstruct,
replace, repair, operate or maintain the Grantee Facilities.
D. Grantor shall maintain an appropriate three-foot clear area around all edges of all
equipment pads for Grantee Facilities in addition to a clear operational area that
extends 12 feet immediately in front of all transformer or switching cabinet
openings, within the Easement Premises. No obstruction, trees, shrubs, fixtures or
permanent structures shall be placed or permitted by Grantor within said areas.
Grantee is hereby granted the right to trim, prune, cut, and clear away trees, brush,
shrubs or other obstruction within said areas.
E. Grantee shall exercise reasonable care to avoid damage to the Easement Premises
and all improvements thereon and agrees that following any work or use by Grantee
within the Easement Premises, the affected area, including without limitation, all
pavement, landscaping, concrete and other improvements permitted within the
Easement Premises pursuant to this easement will be restored by Grantee to as
close to original condition as is reasonably possible, at the expense of Grantee.
F. Grantor reserves the right to require the relocation of Grantee Facilities to a new
location within Grantor's property; provided however, that: (1) Grantor pays the
entire cost of redesigning and relocating existing Grantee Facilities to the new
location; and (2) Grantor provides Grantee with a new and substantially similar
public utility easement at no cost to Grantee. After relocation of Grantee Facilities to
the new easement area, Grantee shall abandon its rights to use the Easement
Premises granted in this easement without cost or consequence to Grantor.
G. Each public service corporation and telecommunication services corporation as a
Grantee shall coordinate and work with other Grantees in the use of the Easement
Premises. In the event that a third party or other Grantee requests the relocation of
existing Grantee Facilities to a new location (whether or not) within the Easement
Premises, the requesting party shall pay the entire cost of redesigning and
relocating the existing Grantee Facilities.
H. Grantee shall not have the right to transfer, convey or assign its interests in this
easement to any individual, corporation or other entity without the prior written
Page 183
consent of Grantor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Grantee
shall notify Grantor of any proposed transfer, conveyance or assignment of any
rights granted herein at address listed below.
I. Except in emergencies or exigent circumstances such as service restoration,
Grantee agrees to contact Grantor at least one business day prior to Grantee's
entrance onto the Easement Premises where the Easement Premises are located:
(1) on a site that includes Aviation Department facilities; (2) water and wastewater
treatment facilities; (3) Police Department headquarters located at 620 W.
Washington St.; (4) Fire Department headquarters located at 150 S. 12th St.; (5)
City Hall located at 200 W. Washington St.; (6) City Court Building located at 300 W.
Washington St.; (7) Calvin C. Goode Building located at 251 W. Washington St.; (8)
Transit Operations Center located at 320 N. 1st Ave. or West Transit Facility located
at 405 N. 79th Ave.; or (9) in a secured or fenced area.
Location
6539 N. 43rd Ave., identified by Maricopa County assessor parcel number 152-31-146.
Council District: 5
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation and Finance departments.
Page 184
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Deeds and Easements for Public Utility, Roadway
and Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-48306)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate deeds and easements for public
utility, roadway and sidewalk 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: Daniela Avram and Cornel Avram, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 28008 N. 37th Ave.
File: FN 210120
Council District: 1
Deed (b)
Applicant: Daniela Avram and Cornel Avram, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 28008 N. 37th Ave.
File: FN 210120
Council District: 1
Deed (c)
Applicant: BHABK Holdings 1, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 3801 and 3805 N. 3rd St.
File: FN 210115
Council District: 4
Easement (d)
Applicant: BHABK Holdings 1, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Page 185
Location: 3801 and 3805 N. 3rd St.
File: FN 210115
Council District: 4
Easement (e)
Applicant: Clayton 4405 7th LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 4445 N. 7th St.
File: FN 210105
Council District: 4
Easement (f)
Applicant: RH Diamond Homes LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2225 W. Highland Ave.
File: FN 210113
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 186
Report
and Sidewalk Purposes (Ordinance S-48306)
Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate deeds and easements for public
utility, roadway and sidewalk 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: Daniela Avram and Cornel Avram, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 28008 N. 37th Ave.
File: FN 210120
Council District: 1
Deed (b)
Applicant: Daniela Avram and Cornel Avram, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 28008 N. 37th Ave.
File: FN 210120
Council District: 1
Deed (c)
Applicant: BHABK Holdings 1, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Roadway
Location: 3801 and 3805 N. 3rd St.
File: FN 210115
Council District: 4
Easement (d)
Applicant: BHABK Holdings 1, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Page 185
Location: 3801 and 3805 N. 3rd St.
File: FN 210115
Council District: 4
Easement (e)
Applicant: Clayton 4405 7th LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 4445 N. 7th St.
File: FN 210105
Council District: 4
Easement (f)
Applicant: RH Diamond Homes LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 2225 W. Highland Ave.
File: FN 210113
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development and Finance departments.
Page 186
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
An Ordinance Authorizing the Issuance of General Obligation Refunding Bonds
(Ordinance S-48317)
An ordinance authorizing the issuance of one or more series of general obligation
refunding bonds of the City of Phoenix providing for the sale of refunding bonds;
providing for the application of the proceeds of refunding bonds; providing for the
registration, transfer and payment thereof; authorizing the execution of certain
agreements in connection therewith or in lieu thereof; ratifying and confirming certain
actions in connection with the sale of said refunding bonds; directing the refunding and
redemption of certain general obligation bonds of the City of Phoenix; and making
other provisions in connection with the foregoing.
Summary
This ordinance authorizes the refunding of certain outstanding general obligation
bonds to take advantage of the City’s high quality credit ratings, low interest rates and
to provide debt service savings to benefit the rate payers by offsetting costs.
Refunding opportunities currently exist that are expected to save an estimated $16
million over the next 10 years.
Financial Impact
The City will levy secondary property taxes for the repayment of the obligations. Any
refunding bonds issued as a result of this ordinance will produce savings.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 187
Report
(Ordinance S-48317)
An ordinance authorizing the issuance of one or more series of general obligation
refunding bonds of the City of Phoenix providing for the sale of refunding bonds;
providing for the application of the proceeds of refunding bonds; providing for the
registration, transfer and payment thereof; authorizing the execution of certain
agreements in connection therewith or in lieu thereof; ratifying and confirming certain
actions in connection with the sale of said refunding bonds; directing the refunding and
redemption of certain general obligation bonds of the City of Phoenix; and making
other provisions in connection with the foregoing.
Summary
This ordinance authorizes the refunding of certain outstanding general obligation
bonds to take advantage of the City’s high quality credit ratings, low interest rates and
to provide debt service savings to benefit the rate payers by offsetting costs.
Refunding opportunities currently exist that are expected to save an estimated $16
million over the next 10 years.
Financial Impact
The City will levy secondary property taxes for the repayment of the obligations. Any
refunding bonds issued as a result of this ordinance will produce savings.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Finance Department.
Page 187
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Resolution to Declare June 19th of Each Year as a Designated City Holiday
Known as Juneteenth Day (Resolution 21988)
This item is a proposed Resolution for the City Council to declare June 19th of each
year as a designated city holiday beginning in 2022.
Summary
On June 19, 1865, about two months after the Confederate General Robert E. Lee
surrendered at Appomattox, Virginia, a Union general arrived in Galveston, Texas to
inform enslaved African-Americans of their freedom and that the Civil War had ended,
putting into effect the Emancipation Proclamation issued more than two and a half
years earlier by President Abraham Lincoln. Juneteenth Day is a holiday to celebrate
freedom and to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, and the Human Resources and
Law departments.
Page 188
Report
Known as Juneteenth Day (Resolution 21988)
This item is a proposed Resolution for the City Council to declare June 19th of each
year as a designated city holiday beginning in 2022.
Summary
On June 19, 1865, about two months after the Confederate General Robert E. Lee
surrendered at Appomattox, Virginia, a Union general arrived in Galveston, Texas to
inform enslaved African-Americans of their freedom and that the Civil War had ended,
putting into effect the Emancipation Proclamation issued more than two and a half
years earlier by President Abraham Lincoln. Juneteenth Day is a holiday to celebrate
freedom and to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, and the Human Resources and
Law departments.
Page 188
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Tohono O'odham Nation Gaming Grants (Ordinance S-48320)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept, and as awarded, to
enter into related agreements for up to $70,000 in new funding from the Tohono
O'odham Nation under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds are directed by the
Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
These monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham Nation towards
the following:
Non-Profit Applications
· United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arizona: $50,000 for the Therapy Clinic program
which will provide pediatric occupational, physical, speech, and feeding therapies
for children with disabilities. Specialized evidence-based services will be expanded
to more of Arizona's children with motor disorders that are related to cerebral palsy,
genetic disorders, rare disorders and any diagnosis that causes limitations in a
child's physical abilities. There is no other program in Arizona that uniquely serves
the physical needs with targeted, evidence based, cutting edge approaches.
· UMOM New Day Centers: $20,000 for the Client Assistance program, which will
provide youth programming, educational assistance, moving assistance and
employment assistance to unsheltered families waiting to enter shelter and escape
from an unsafe environment of living on the streets, sleeping in their cars, or
residing in an unstable living situation.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The
Tohono O'odham Nation will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Page 189
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 190
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept, and as awarded, to
enter into related agreements for up to $70,000 in new funding from the Tohono
O'odham Nation under the 2021 funding cycle. Further request authorization for the
City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, funds are directed by the
Tohono O'odham Nation in connection with these grants.
Summary
These monies would be applied, as directed by the Tohono O'odham Nation towards
the following:
Non-Profit Applications
· United Cerebral Palsy of Central Arizona: $50,000 for the Therapy Clinic program
which will provide pediatric occupational, physical, speech, and feeding therapies
for children with disabilities. Specialized evidence-based services will be expanded
to more of Arizona's children with motor disorders that are related to cerebral palsy,
genetic disorders, rare disorders and any diagnosis that causes limitations in a
child's physical abilities. There is no other program in Arizona that uniquely serves
the physical needs with targeted, evidence based, cutting edge approaches.
· UMOM New Day Centers: $20,000 for the Client Assistance program, which will
provide youth programming, educational assistance, moving assistance and
employment assistance to unsheltered families waiting to enter shelter and escape
from an unsafe environment of living on the streets, sleeping in their cars, or
residing in an unstable living situation.
The gaming compact entered into by the State of Arizona and various tribes calls for
12 percent of gaming revenue to be contributed to cities, towns, and counties for
government services that benefit the general public including public safety, mitigation
of impacts of gaming, and promotion of commerce and economic development. The
Tohono O'odham Nation will notify the City, by resolution, of the Tribal Council, if it
desires to convey to the City a portion of its annual 12 percent local revenue-sharing
contribution.
Page 189
Financial Impact
There is no budgetary impact to the City of Phoenix and no general funds are required.
Entities that receive gaming grants are responsible for the management of those
funds.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Office of Government
Relations.
Page 190
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Transfer of Retirement Funds to Arizona State Retirement System (Ordinance S-
48310)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Derek Rogers in the amount of $73,714.51 to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds.
Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of their credited service:
Rogers, Derek: $73,714.51
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at its Jan. 6, 2022 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.
Page 191
Report
48310)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to transfer retirement funds for
Derek Rogers in the amount of $73,714.51 to the Arizona State Retirement System.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse funds.
Summary
Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes, sections 38-730 and 38-922, retirement service
credits for former members of the City of Phoenix Employees’ Retirement System
(COPERS) may be transferred to the Arizona State Retirement System upon approval
by the City Council. The following former City of Phoenix employee has requested
transfer of the balance of their credited service:
Rogers, Derek: $73,714.51
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was approved by the COPERS Board at its Jan. 6, 2022 meeting.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Retirement
Office.
Page 191
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Combating COVID-19 Efforts (Ordinance S-48321)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend current contracts
and execute new contracts as necessary to obtain at-home COVID-19 tests, personal
protective equipment, emergency and community outreach services, and other
expenses related to COVID-19. This request will provide funding to enhance and
expand services supporting the City's COVID-19 response including community
testing, vaccination services and distribution of masks and at-home test kits. Further
request the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will have
an aggregate amount of $25 million. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding
is available through the City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
received from the federal government.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on
March 20, 2020. Staff continues to work with healthcare providers to ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available throughout the
duration of the public health emergency.
Currently, the Public Works Department coordinates community testing and
vaccination services for the general public at community testing healthcare events.
With support and authorization from the Mayor and City Council, the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) allowed the Public Works Department to partner with medical
providers to administer 78,038 COVID-19 tests, 11,271 vaccines, and 596 gift cards
through the Vaccine Incentive Program at 406 events Citywide. To date, the City has
expended $5 million in ARPA funding to advance community testing and vaccine
efforts.
On Jan. 5, 2022, City Council approved contract amendments and additional
expenditures for continued community testing and vaccination services through June
30, 2022, and to purchase at-home test kits for distribution to Phoenix residents. The
Finance Department has received close to 25,000 at-home test kits that will be
distributed to the general public through the medical partners who provide community
testing and vaccination events.
Page 192
During the City Council Work Study Session on Jan. 11, 2022, City Council discussed
including funding for these efforts in the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Strategic Plan. In response to City Council discussion and the current COVID surge,
staff requests funding for an enhanced and expanded strategy with additional hours
and events. The expanded services will also include free at-home test kits and KN95
masks for distribution to Phoenix residents. Staff recommends allocating $15 million to
support community testing and vaccination services and $10 million to purchase at-
home tests, high quality masks, and informational materials to be distributed to
Phoenix residents as Combating COVID Kits. The kits will include at-home rapid
antigen tests, supportive resources for positive tests, information about COVID-19
vaccines, KN95 masks, and testing and vaccination schedules with promotional
materials on the City’s vaccine efforts.
With the continued COVID-19 surge, Public Works and Finance staff have developed a
phased approach for expansion of community testing and vaccination events including
distribution of the Combating COVID Kits as outlined. The phased approach will
ensure an efficient and equitable implementation of the program based on access to
an adequate supply of the test kits and masks. Staff will closely monitor and evaluate
the availability of test kits and masks before recommending progression between each
phase of the program as noted.
Phase One
· Add the distribution of at-home rapid tests and KN95 masks to the City’s current
community partners.
· This distribution will be in coordination with current testing and vaccination efforts
through the Mobile Units and at the Static Sites. The distribution of the kits will be
data-driven and focused on the communities throughout the City with the highest
spread of COVID-19.
Phase Two
· Expand distribution of the Combating COVID Kits, including at-home rapid tests and
KN95 masks, to school districts and to senior centers located throughout the City of
Phoenix.
· Coordinate with the City Manager’s Youth and Education Office to ensure an
equitable distribution of the Kits similar to the City’s previous PPE for Schools effort.
Phase Three
· Expand distribution of the Combating COVID Kits to City of Phoenix facilities
throughout the community focusing on areas of the City with the highest spread of
Page 193
COVID-19.
· This expansion will include City of Phoenix libraries, community centers, senior
centers, housing sites and other locations identified throughout the City. These
locations will include an analysis of the spread of the virus and other factors
including access to vaccinations, testing and other critical resources.
The federal government has recently implemented new resources intended to increase
access to at-home COVID-19 tests. This includes launch of the covidtests.gov website,
providing the opportunity for every household in the U.S. to order four free at-home
COVID-19 tests. As a result, staff will initially use $5 million of the proposed $10 million
allocation for the Combating COVID Kits to launch the initial phases of the program.
The new federal government resources may reduce demand for the City's Combating
COVID Kits. Staff will evaluate the demand for the City's Combating COVID Kits before
using the remaining $5 million allocation.
Contract Term
The existing agreements began on July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. Staff is
requesting two additional six-month extensions on existing contracts, for a contract
term ending June 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
With the proposed funding, the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic Plan will include an
allocation of $15 million for community testing and vaccine services through June 30,
2023 in addition to $10 million to purchase at-home tests, high quality masks and
informational materials to be distributed to Phoenix residents. City staff is tracking all
expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic separately and will continue regularly
reporting these expenses to the City Council.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Health Care LLC on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021;
· ARPA Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
Page 194
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-47827) on July 1, 2021 extending through June 30, 2022; ARPA
Strategic Plan Update on Sept. 21, 2021; and
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-48162) on Dec. 1, 2021.
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-48260) on Jan. 5, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Karen
Peters and the Finance and Public Works departments.
Page 195
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend current contracts
and execute new contracts as necessary to obtain at-home COVID-19 tests, personal
protective equipment, emergency and community outreach services, and other
expenses related to COVID-19. This request will provide funding to enhance and
expand services supporting the City's COVID-19 response including community
testing, vaccination services and distribution of masks and at-home test kits. Further
request the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will have
an aggregate amount of $25 million. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding
is available through the City's allocation of the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
received from the federal government.
Summary
The City Council declared a local emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic on
March 20, 2020. Staff continues to work with healthcare providers to ensure that
community testing and vaccination efforts for residents are available throughout the
duration of the public health emergency.
Currently, the Public Works Department coordinates community testing and
vaccination services for the general public at community testing healthcare events.
With support and authorization from the Mayor and City Council, the American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) allowed the Public Works Department to partner with medical
providers to administer 78,038 COVID-19 tests, 11,271 vaccines, and 596 gift cards
through the Vaccine Incentive Program at 406 events Citywide. To date, the City has
expended $5 million in ARPA funding to advance community testing and vaccine
efforts.
On Jan. 5, 2022, City Council approved contract amendments and additional
expenditures for continued community testing and vaccination services through June
30, 2022, and to purchase at-home test kits for distribution to Phoenix residents. The
Finance Department has received close to 25,000 at-home test kits that will be
distributed to the general public through the medical partners who provide community
testing and vaccination events.
Page 192
During the City Council Work Study Session on Jan. 11, 2022, City Council discussed
including funding for these efforts in the upcoming American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
Strategic Plan. In response to City Council discussion and the current COVID surge,
staff requests funding for an enhanced and expanded strategy with additional hours
and events. The expanded services will also include free at-home test kits and KN95
masks for distribution to Phoenix residents. Staff recommends allocating $15 million to
support community testing and vaccination services and $10 million to purchase at-
home tests, high quality masks, and informational materials to be distributed to
Phoenix residents as Combating COVID Kits. The kits will include at-home rapid
antigen tests, supportive resources for positive tests, information about COVID-19
vaccines, KN95 masks, and testing and vaccination schedules with promotional
materials on the City’s vaccine efforts.
With the continued COVID-19 surge, Public Works and Finance staff have developed a
phased approach for expansion of community testing and vaccination events including
distribution of the Combating COVID Kits as outlined. The phased approach will
ensure an efficient and equitable implementation of the program based on access to
an adequate supply of the test kits and masks. Staff will closely monitor and evaluate
the availability of test kits and masks before recommending progression between each
phase of the program as noted.
Phase One
· Add the distribution of at-home rapid tests and KN95 masks to the City’s current
community partners.
· This distribution will be in coordination with current testing and vaccination efforts
through the Mobile Units and at the Static Sites. The distribution of the kits will be
data-driven and focused on the communities throughout the City with the highest
spread of COVID-19.
Phase Two
· Expand distribution of the Combating COVID Kits, including at-home rapid tests and
KN95 masks, to school districts and to senior centers located throughout the City of
Phoenix.
· Coordinate with the City Manager’s Youth and Education Office to ensure an
equitable distribution of the Kits similar to the City’s previous PPE for Schools effort.
Phase Three
· Expand distribution of the Combating COVID Kits to City of Phoenix facilities
throughout the community focusing on areas of the City with the highest spread of
Page 193
COVID-19.
· This expansion will include City of Phoenix libraries, community centers, senior
centers, housing sites and other locations identified throughout the City. These
locations will include an analysis of the spread of the virus and other factors
including access to vaccinations, testing and other critical resources.
The federal government has recently implemented new resources intended to increase
access to at-home COVID-19 tests. This includes launch of the covidtests.gov website,
providing the opportunity for every household in the U.S. to order four free at-home
COVID-19 tests. As a result, staff will initially use $5 million of the proposed $10 million
allocation for the Combating COVID Kits to launch the initial phases of the program.
The new federal government resources may reduce demand for the City's Combating
COVID Kits. Staff will evaluate the demand for the City's Combating COVID Kits before
using the remaining $5 million allocation.
Contract Term
The existing agreements began on July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. Staff is
requesting two additional six-month extensions on existing contracts, for a contract
term ending June 30, 2023.
Financial Impact
With the proposed funding, the ARPA Second Tranche Strategic Plan will include an
allocation of $15 million for community testing and vaccine services through June 30,
2023 in addition to $10 million to purchase at-home tests, high quality masks and
informational materials to be distributed to Phoenix residents. City staff is tracking all
expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic separately and will continue regularly
reporting these expenses to the City Council.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Agreement 152430 (S-46775) with Equality Health Foundation on June 17, 2020;
· Agreement 152654 (S-46848) with Family Tree Health Care LLC on July 1, 2020;
· Agreement 152825 (S-46849) with Vincere Physicians Group on July 1, 2020;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; and
152825 with Vincere Physicians Group - Amendments (S-47158) on Dec. 2, 2020;
· Agreement 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions (S-47219) on Jan. 6, 2021;
· ARPA Strategic Plan for Allocation 1 on June 8, 2021;
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
Page 194
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-47827) on July 1, 2021 extending through June 30, 2022; ARPA
Strategic Plan Update on Sept. 21, 2021; and
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-48162) on Dec. 1, 2021.
· Agreements: 152430 with Equality Health Foundation, Sonora Quest Laboratories
LLC, and Equality Care Center; 152654 with Family Tree Health Care LLC; 152825
with Vincere Physicians Group; and 153733 with Premier Lab Solutions -
Amendments (S-48260) on Jan. 5, 2022.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City Manager Karen
Peters and the Finance and Public Works departments.
Page 195
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Roofing Repairs and Replacements Contract - Amendment (Ordinance S-48308)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149138 with Capstone Roofing, LLC and Stratton Restoration, LLC, dba
Stratton Builders to provide additional funding for roofing repairs and replacements.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $280,000. This program is federally
funded and no City General Funds are used.
Summary
The Housing Department uses contractors to provide roofing repairs and replacement
services. These services are used for Senior Housing Sites, Section 32 Scattered
Sites Single Family Homes and Housing Administration Buildings. The additional funds
will be used to continue the renovations and repairs for the Section 32 homes. The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved Section
32 homeownership programs, which provide the right to sell these single-family homes
subject to certain requirements that include roofing repairs or replacements.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2024.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Contract 149138 was for an expenditure not to exceed
$511,000. This amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an
additional $280,000, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $791,000. The
program is federally funded and no City General Funds are used.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 149138 (Ordinance S-45276) on Jan. 9, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Page 196
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 149138 with Capstone Roofing, LLC and Stratton Restoration, LLC, dba
Stratton Builders to provide additional funding for roofing repairs and replacements.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $280,000. This program is federally
funded and no City General Funds are used.
Summary
The Housing Department uses contractors to provide roofing repairs and replacement
services. These services are used for Senior Housing Sites, Section 32 Scattered
Sites Single Family Homes and Housing Administration Buildings. The additional funds
will be used to continue the renovations and repairs for the Section 32 homes. The
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development has approved Section
32 homeownership programs, which provide the right to sell these single-family homes
subject to certain requirements that include roofing repairs or replacements.
Contract Term
The contract term will remain unchanged, ending on Jan. 31, 2024.
Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Contract 149138 was for an expenditure not to exceed
$511,000. This amendment will increase the authorization for the contract by an
additional $280,000, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $791,000. The
program is federally funded and no City General Funds are used.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 149138 (Ordinance S-45276) on Jan. 9, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Page 196
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Custodial Services (Housing Locations) Contract - Amendment (Ordinance S-
48309)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 144489 with Triangle Services, LLC to extend the life of the contract for
approximately 12 months to allow time for a new solicitation and to add $25,000 in
additional funding for custodial services at City Housing locations. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This program is
federally funded and no City General Funds are used.
Summary
Triangle Services, LLC provides custodial services for the Housing Department's
Family Self-Sufficiency building and Emmett McLoughlin Community Training and
Education Center (CTEC). These services include general cleaning of the interior and
exterior including floors, restrooms and cubicle cleanings.
The Housing Department is requesting to extend this contract to coincide with the term
of the Housing Department’s Custodial Services Senior Sites contract (Contract
146886) which terminates on Jan. 31, 2023. This will combine all the Housing
Department locations under one contract. These two locations have vacant rooms and
unused spaces because of COVID-19, and it is difficult to determine the custodial
service requirements until longer-term evaluation of activities is determined during
these changing environments.
Contract Term
The term of the contract began on March 1, 2017, and ends Feb. 22, 2022. If
approved, the amendment would extend the term of the contract to Jan. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $25,000 in additional funds, the revised contract value will not
exceed $325,000. This contract is federally funded.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 144489 (Ordinance S-43170) on Jan. 25, 2017.
Page 197
Locations
Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 810 S. 7th Ave.
Emmett McLoughlin CTEC, 1150 S. 7th Ave.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Page 198
Report
48309)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 144489 with Triangle Services, LLC to extend the life of the contract for
approximately 12 months to allow time for a new solicitation and to add $25,000 in
additional funding for custodial services at City Housing locations. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This program is
federally funded and no City General Funds are used.
Summary
Triangle Services, LLC provides custodial services for the Housing Department's
Family Self-Sufficiency building and Emmett McLoughlin Community Training and
Education Center (CTEC). These services include general cleaning of the interior and
exterior including floors, restrooms and cubicle cleanings.
The Housing Department is requesting to extend this contract to coincide with the term
of the Housing Department’s Custodial Services Senior Sites contract (Contract
146886) which terminates on Jan. 31, 2023. This will combine all the Housing
Department locations under one contract. These two locations have vacant rooms and
unused spaces because of COVID-19, and it is difficult to determine the custodial
service requirements until longer-term evaluation of activities is determined during
these changing environments.
Contract Term
The term of the contract began on March 1, 2017, and ends Feb. 22, 2022. If
approved, the amendment would extend the term of the contract to Jan. 31, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $25,000 in additional funds, the revised contract value will not
exceed $325,000. This contract is federally funded.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 144489 (Ordinance S-43170) on Jan. 25, 2017.
Page 197
Locations
Family Self-Sufficiency Program, 810 S. 7th Ave.
Emmett McLoughlin CTEC, 1150 S. 7th Ave.
Council District: 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Housing
Department.
Page 198
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Workplace Readiness Skills Training - Professional Services Contract
(Ordinance S-48312)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with AVID Consulting, LLC to provide workplace readiness skills training. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total contract amount will not exceed $300,000. Funds are available from the City’s
allocation of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) grant funds.
Summary
This contract will provide training services to develop and deliver behavioral training
services to clients enrolled as an adult or dislocated worker to help build and refine soft
-skills, increase workplace readiness and increase opportunities for attaining
employment in high-growth industry positions at family-sustaining wages.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-21-BWDD-45, was conducted in accordance with the City
of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Human Services Department received
six offers on Oct. 29, 2021, and determined four were responsive and responsible to
the solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee evaluated all proposals based on the outlined evaluation
criteria, responsiveness to all the specifications, terms and conditions, and
responsibility to provide the required service. The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Soft-Skills Training Curriculum: 250 possible points;
Service Methodology: 250 possible points;
Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel: 200 possible points;
Bid Price Schedule: 200 possible points; and
Organizational Capacity: 100 possible points.
The Evaluation Committee reached consensus and recommends that the contract be
awarded to AVID Consulting LLC, as the highest-scoring, responsive and responsible
offeror, which is most advantageous to the City.
Page 199
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023,
with four one-year options to extend, which may be exercised by the City Manager or
his designee.
Financial Impact
The total contract value shall not exceed $300,000. Funds are available from WIOA
grant funds in the Human Services Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 200
Report
(Ordinance S-48312)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with AVID Consulting, LLC to provide workplace readiness skills training. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total contract amount will not exceed $300,000. Funds are available from the City’s
allocation of Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) grant funds.
Summary
This contract will provide training services to develop and deliver behavioral training
services to clients enrolled as an adult or dislocated worker to help build and refine soft
-skills, increase workplace readiness and increase opportunities for attaining
employment in high-growth industry positions at family-sustaining wages.
Procurement Information
Request for Proposals, RFP-21-BWDD-45, was conducted in accordance with the City
of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10. The Human Services Department received
six offers on Oct. 29, 2021, and determined four were responsive and responsible to
the solicitation requirements.
The Evaluation Committee evaluated all proposals based on the outlined evaluation
criteria, responsiveness to all the specifications, terms and conditions, and
responsibility to provide the required service. The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:
Soft-Skills Training Curriculum: 250 possible points;
Service Methodology: 250 possible points;
Qualifications and Experience of Key Personnel: 200 possible points;
Bid Price Schedule: 200 possible points; and
Organizational Capacity: 100 possible points.
The Evaluation Committee reached consensus and recommends that the contract be
awarded to AVID Consulting LLC, as the highest-scoring, responsive and responsible
offeror, which is most advantageous to the City.
Page 199
Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023,
with four one-year options to extend, which may be exercised by the City Manager or
his designee.
Financial Impact
The total contract value shall not exceed $300,000. Funds are available from WIOA
grant funds in the Human Services Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services
Department.
Page 200
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Maintenance of Environmental Units at Pueblo Grande - Requirements Contract -
IFB 18-036 (A) (Ordinance S-48313)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 146486 with Crawford Mechanical Services LLC for the
purchase of preventative maintenance and repairs of temperature control units at
Pueblo Grande 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 $37,000.
Summary
This contract provides preventative maintenance and repairs to 18 specialized units at
the Pueblo Grande Museum for two collections vaults inside the museum. The units
cannot be maintained by City staff due to the required certifications needed to maintain
these units. The original contract value did not account for auxiliary services that would
be needed beyond regular preventative maintenance. Due to the age of the units more
maintenance has been needed than originally anticipated and the additional funding is
needed.
Contract Term
The contract term is Dec. 1, 2017 through Nov. 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $37,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $107,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Nov. 29, 2017.
Location
4619 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8
Page 201
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 202
Report
IFB 18-036 (A) (Ordinance S-48313)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 146486 with Crawford Mechanical Services LLC for the
purchase of preventative maintenance and repairs of temperature control units at
Pueblo Grande 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 $37,000.
Summary
This contract provides preventative maintenance and repairs to 18 specialized units at
the Pueblo Grande Museum for two collections vaults inside the museum. The units
cannot be maintained by City staff due to the required certifications needed to maintain
these units. The original contract value did not account for auxiliary services that would
be needed beyond regular preventative maintenance. Due to the age of the units more
maintenance has been needed than originally anticipated and the additional funding is
needed.
Contract Term
The contract term is Dec. 1, 2017 through Nov. 30, 2022.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $37,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $107,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department's budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Nov. 29, 2017.
Location
4619 E. Washington St.
Council District: 8
Page 201
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Inger Erickson and the Parks and
Recreation Department.
Page 202
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Downtown Redevelopment Area Plan Update Consulting Services - RFP-CED21-
RDA (Ordinance S-48307)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PLAN*et Communities PLLC for the Downtown Redevelopment Area (RDA) plan
update consulting services. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed
$468,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in the
Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.
Summary
In January 1979, the City Council established the Downtown RDA through the City
Council's designation of a slum area. The Arizona State Legislature's 2018
amendment to section 42-6209(F) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) requires
the City to review each RDA with portions that lie within the City’s Central Business
District (CBD) and either renew, modify or terminate each RDA designation every 10
years.
As part of the review process of the existing RDA's, staff identified two RDAs that
overlapped the City's CBD: the Downtown RDA and the Government Mall RDA. In
February 2019, staff issued a Request for Proposals for consulting services to
evaluate those RDAs. PLAN*et Communities PLLC was the successful proposer for
that solicitation and conducted the necessary research, data collection and analysis to
assist the City in determining whether to renew, modify, or terminate the Downtown
RDA and the Government Mall RDA, to comply with the amended A.R.S. At its June 8,
2020 Formal City Council meeting, the City Council approved the recertification of the
Downtown RDA, along with an updated boundary map, ensuring that the 10-year
timeline between RDA designations was met. That Council approved recertification
consolidated the following RDAs into one Downtown RDA:
· Downtown;
· Government Mall;
· Hope VI;
· 7th Street and Buckeye Road;
· Booker T. Washington;
Page 203
· Eastlake Park;
· Special; and
· Western portion of the Sky Harbor RDA.
In consideration of the revised and expanded boundaries that were approved by
Council, the City is required to update the redevelopment plan for the Downtown RDA.
The proposed scope of work is expected to include:
· Downtown RDA Plan Framework Update
a. Socio-economics study
b. Land use study / general land use plan
c. Review of existing plans
d. Development and improvement objectives
e. Plan implementation program and actions
f. Integration plan for cohesive RDA policy;
· Downtown RDA Plan Development
a. Data collection
b. Public engagement and visioning
c. Steering committee meetings
d. Community outreach
e. Analysis resulting in proposed actions and plan; and
· Presenting Updated RDA Plan for City Council Review and Approval.
Procurement Information
RFP-CED21-RDA, Redevelopment Area Plan Update Consulting Services, was issued
on Aug. 3, 2021, and conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two proposals were received; one of which was non-responsive. Staff recommends
the proposal offered by PLAN*et Communities PLLC as the responsive and
responsible proposal.
Contract Term
The term of the contract is for one year, with four one-year renewal options. Staff
anticipates executing the contract in February 2022.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract shall not exceed $468,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funds are available in the Downtown Community Reinvestment
Fund.
Page 204
Location
The Downtown RDA approximate boundaries are South Black Canyon Highway,
Moreland Street, 16th Street, and South Black Canyon Highway
Council Districts: 4, 7, and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Gina Montes,
and the Community and Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, and
Planning and Development departments.
Page 205
Report
RDA (Ordinance S-48307)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PLAN*et Communities PLLC for the Downtown Redevelopment Area (RDA) plan
update consulting services. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed
$468,000. There is no impact to the General Fund. Funding is available in the
Downtown Community Reinvestment Fund.
Summary
In January 1979, the City Council established the Downtown RDA through the City
Council's designation of a slum area. The Arizona State Legislature's 2018
amendment to section 42-6209(F) of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) requires
the City to review each RDA with portions that lie within the City’s Central Business
District (CBD) and either renew, modify or terminate each RDA designation every 10
years.
As part of the review process of the existing RDA's, staff identified two RDAs that
overlapped the City's CBD: the Downtown RDA and the Government Mall RDA. In
February 2019, staff issued a Request for Proposals for consulting services to
evaluate those RDAs. PLAN*et Communities PLLC was the successful proposer for
that solicitation and conducted the necessary research, data collection and analysis to
assist the City in determining whether to renew, modify, or terminate the Downtown
RDA and the Government Mall RDA, to comply with the amended A.R.S. At its June 8,
2020 Formal City Council meeting, the City Council approved the recertification of the
Downtown RDA, along with an updated boundary map, ensuring that the 10-year
timeline between RDA designations was met. That Council approved recertification
consolidated the following RDAs into one Downtown RDA:
· Downtown;
· Government Mall;
· Hope VI;
· 7th Street and Buckeye Road;
· Booker T. Washington;
Page 203
· Eastlake Park;
· Special; and
· Western portion of the Sky Harbor RDA.
In consideration of the revised and expanded boundaries that were approved by
Council, the City is required to update the redevelopment plan for the Downtown RDA.
The proposed scope of work is expected to include:
· Downtown RDA Plan Framework Update
a. Socio-economics study
b. Land use study / general land use plan
c. Review of existing plans
d. Development and improvement objectives
e. Plan implementation program and actions
f. Integration plan for cohesive RDA policy;
· Downtown RDA Plan Development
a. Data collection
b. Public engagement and visioning
c. Steering committee meetings
d. Community outreach
e. Analysis resulting in proposed actions and plan; and
· Presenting Updated RDA Plan for City Council Review and Approval.
Procurement Information
RFP-CED21-RDA, Redevelopment Area Plan Update Consulting Services, was issued
on Aug. 3, 2021, and conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
Two proposals were received; one of which was non-responsive. Staff recommends
the proposal offered by PLAN*et Communities PLLC as the responsive and
responsible proposal.
Contract Term
The term of the contract is for one year, with four one-year renewal options. Staff
anticipates executing the contract in February 2022.
Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract shall not exceed $468,000. There is no impact to
the General Fund. Funds are available in the Downtown Community Reinvestment
Fund.
Page 204
Location
The Downtown RDA approximate boundaries are South Black Canyon Highway,
Moreland Street, 16th Street, and South Black Canyon Highway
Council Districts: 4, 7, and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Gina Montes,
and the Community and Economic Development, Neighborhood Services, and
Planning and Development departments.
Page 205
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Custodial Services (Fire Department Locations) - Requirements Contract - IFB 17
-043 (Ordinance S-48302)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144485 and 144486 with IWC LLC and Triangle Services
Inc to provide Custodial Services for the City of Phoenix Fire Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $700,000.
Summary
These contracts provide the City of Phoenix Fire Department all the necessary trained
personnel, supervision, scheduling, equipment and tools with maintenance, and other
accessories required to perform custodial services for the general cleaning of the
facility's interiors and exteriors. The extension of these contracts will provide continued
janitorial services, which are critical to the health, safety and welfare of all users of
those facilities, especially during this unprecedented time of COVID-19. The Central
Procurement Division has just commenced the process of completing a new Invitation
for Bid solicitation for these services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Feb. 28, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $700,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $3,098,488. Funds are available in the Fire Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
These contracts were originally approved by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 206
Report
-043 (Ordinance S-48302)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144485 and 144486 with IWC LLC and Triangle Services
Inc to provide Custodial Services for the City of Phoenix Fire Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The additional expenditures will not exceed $700,000.
Summary
These contracts provide the City of Phoenix Fire Department all the necessary trained
personnel, supervision, scheduling, equipment and tools with maintenance, and other
accessories required to perform custodial services for the general cleaning of the
facility's interiors and exteriors. The extension of these contracts will provide continued
janitorial services, which are critical to the health, safety and welfare of all users of
those facilities, especially during this unprecedented time of COVID-19. The Central
Procurement Division has just commenced the process of completing a new Invitation
for Bid solicitation for these services.
Contract Term
Upon approval, the contract term will be extended through Feb. 28, 2023.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $700,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $3,098,488. Funds are available in the Fire Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
These contracts were originally approved by City Council on Jan. 25, 2017.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Fire Department.
Page 206
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Counterterrorism Training - RFA 19-144A (Ordinance S-48304)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 151126 with Lion Global Foundation, dba
Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (CELL) for the purchase of counterterrorism
training 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
$50,000.
Summary
The Homeland Defense Bureau's Threat Mitigation Unit (TMU) was awarded additional
grant funds to continue to create and implement a plan to protect critical infrastructure,
not only in the Phoenix metropolitan area, but around the state as well. The TMU is a
contributing partner at the Arizona Counterterrorism Information Center (ACTIC), the
federally recognized fusion center for the State of Arizona. The stated mission of
ACTIC is to protect the people and the critical infrastructure of the state. The TMU
would like to continue to take advantage of the effort and expertise already in
existence with CELL's Community Awareness Program for ACTIC for Arizona's public
safety community to use.
Contract Term
The contract term is Oct. 17, 2019 through Oct. 16, 2022, with the option to extend two
additional years, in one-year increments.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $50,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $150,000. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Oct. 16, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 207
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 151126 with Lion Global Foundation, dba
Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (CELL) for the purchase of counterterrorism
training 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
$50,000.
Summary
The Homeland Defense Bureau's Threat Mitigation Unit (TMU) was awarded additional
grant funds to continue to create and implement a plan to protect critical infrastructure,
not only in the Phoenix metropolitan area, but around the state as well. The TMU is a
contributing partner at the Arizona Counterterrorism Information Center (ACTIC), the
federally recognized fusion center for the State of Arizona. The stated mission of
ACTIC is to protect the people and the critical infrastructure of the state. The TMU
would like to continue to take advantage of the effort and expertise already in
existence with CELL's Community Awareness Program for ACTIC for Arizona's public
safety community to use.
Contract Term
The contract term is Oct. 17, 2019 through Oct. 16, 2022, with the option to extend two
additional years, in one-year increments.
Financial Impact
Upon approval of $50,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $150,000. Funds are available in the Police Department’s
budget.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This contract was originally approved by City Council on Oct. 16, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays and the Police Department.
Page 207
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Request Authorization for Sale of Canine Luky (Ordinance S-48319)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of canine
Luky to Officer Ron Dorfman for $1.00. Officer Dorfman is assigned to the Tactical
Support Bureau's Canine Unit and has requested to purchase and retire his assigned
canine Luky in accordance with Administrative Regulation 4.21. Officer Dorfman left
the Canine Unit on Dec. 20, 2021.
Summary
Canine Luky is five years old, and has served the Tactical Support Bureau with
professionalism, dedication and exemplary effort for over three years. Canine Luky has
not met the Bureau's standard of five years of service and would typically be
reassigned to a new handler prior to being eligible to retire. Canine Luky has a strong
defensive personality which would make it very difficult to transfer him to another
handler. After an evaluation by Unit trainers it is recommended that canine Luky be
retired in lieu of being reassigned.
This request is for the authorization of the sale of canine Luky for $1.00. The purchase
of canine Luky is being made by Officer Ron Dorfman, who agrees to accept full
responsibility and liability for canine Luky 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 208
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the sale of canine
Luky to Officer Ron Dorfman for $1.00. Officer Dorfman is assigned to the Tactical
Support Bureau's Canine Unit and has requested to purchase and retire his assigned
canine Luky in accordance with Administrative Regulation 4.21. Officer Dorfman left
the Canine Unit on Dec. 20, 2021.
Summary
Canine Luky is five years old, and has served the Tactical Support Bureau with
professionalism, dedication and exemplary effort for over three years. Canine Luky has
not met the Bureau's standard of five years of service and would typically be
reassigned to a new handler prior to being eligible to retire. Canine Luky has a strong
defensive personality which would make it very difficult to transfer him to another
handler. After an evaluation by Unit trainers it is recommended that canine Luky be
retired in lieu of being reassigned.
This request is for the authorization of the sale of canine Luky for $1.00. The purchase
of canine Luky is being made by Officer Ron Dorfman, who agrees to accept full
responsibility and liability for canine Luky 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 208
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Light Rail Small Business Financial Assistance Program (Ordinance S-48305)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to continue the Light Rail
Small Business Financial Assistance Program (SBFAP) Pilot underway along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub (SCE/DH) and the Northwest Extension
Phase II (NWEII) light rail alignments through the duration of construction for both
projects, which are anticipated for completion in 2024, and to expand the eligibility
criteria as recommended below.
Summary
The SBFAP Pilot, funded through T2050 and the Phoenix Community Development
Investment Corporation (PCDIC), is facilitated by Valley Metro and administered by
Prestamos CDFI, LLC. The Pilot opened for applications in mid-March 2021. As the
Pilot's initial year is scheduled to expire in March 2022, this report provides information
on the Pilot's current state and recommendations for modifying and continuing the
Pilot.
Program Pilot
In response to requests from area businesses, the SBFAP Pilot was created to provide
direct financial assistance to help mitigate commercial interruptions for locally-owned
small and micro businesses that have been directly impacted by construction along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub and the Northwest Extension Phase II light
rail extension corridors. The Pilot has a two-tiered approach to provide funding:
· Tier I - offers $3,000 in program year financial assistance; and
· Tier II - offers up to $9,000 in program year assistance based on demonstrated
revenue impact during the construction period.
The current SBFAP Pilot's eligibility criteria for affected businesses are:
Tier I
· Be physically located on, or directly accessed from: 1) Central Avenue, between
Jefferson Street and Baseline Road (for SCE/DH); 2) Dunlap Avenue, between 19th
and 25th Avenues (for NWEII); 3) 25th Avenue, between Dunlap Avenue and
Mountain View Road (for NWEII); 4) Mountain View Road, from 25th Avenue to the
Page 209
former Metrocenter Mall property (for NWEII); or 5) the Metrocenter Mall property,
as eligible businesses in the former Metrocenter Mall property are also within the
program boundaries (for NWEII);
· Be a locally owned business with 15 or fewer employees and $500,000 or less in
annual revenue for the overall business;
· Be currently open and operational on the affected light rail construction alignment
with posted hours of operation, as well as open and operational prior to the start of
construction;
· Conduct business directly with consumers where transactions primarily take place
at the location on the affected construction alignment;
· Be able to provide all necessary documents to verify program eligibility;
· Be in good standing with all local, state, and federal taxing and licensing authorities;
and
· Sign a waiver releasing the City, Valley Metro, and any contractors selected to run
the SBFAP Pilot from any claims related to revenue impacts arising out of light rail
planning, design, and construction activities in order to receive this Pilot's funding
support.
Tier II
· Meet all the requirements of Tier I;
· Be operational at least one year prior to the start of construction; and
· Demonstrate, via financial business records, a loss in revenue after the
commencement of construction and related activities in comparison with the same
period in the year prior to the start of construction.
The SBFAP Pilot's application is available online and in paper format in both English
and Spanish. Business owners can also get assistance completing the application via
an in-person visit with Prestamos staff at the location of their choice or by telephone.
Staff has gathered information and developed recommendations for consideration in
continuing the SBFAP Pilot beyond the current program year. To date, 58 businesses
have received more than $300,000 in financial assistance through this Pilot. An
additional 20 applications are currently in process.
The following provides a couple of examples of customer feedback demonstrating the
impact of the funds: “The process was very simple. We got the funds within two weeks.
We used it for payroll to keep our employees. Having the extra income to help pay our
bills really helped us.” Carlos Castillo, Owner, Chino-Mex. “The program has
tremendously helped me and I really appreciate it if I can continue to receive help and
Page 210
until this construction is over. I really appreciate it and thanks a million.” Samson
Davis, Owner, Sam's Barber and Stylist School.
The City of Phoenix and Valley Metro recommends approval to continue the SBFAP
through the duration of construction, anticipated for completion on or about Dec. 31,
2024, and to revise eligibility criteria to better serve the needs of businesses along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub and the Northwest Extension Phase II light
rail extension.
Recommended Eligibility Criteria Revisions
To better meet the needs of businesses in these corridors by increasing access to the
funding, staff recommends revising the eligibility criteria as shown below:
· Increase the business annual revenue threshold from not more than $500,000 to
not more than $750,000; and
· Allow all otherwise eligible businesses that were open prior to the start of
construction to participate by removing the requirement for businesses to have
been open not less than one year prior to construction.
Financial Impact
This report does not seek approval of any additional funding. The extension of the
program will utilize funds already allocated in the budget and approved during the
creation of the SBFAP.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The City Council approved implementation of the SBFAP Pilot (Ordinance S-47126)
on Dec. 2, 2020.
· The Citizens Transportation Commission recommended approval of this item on
Dec. 16, 2021, by a vote of 11-0.
· The Transportation Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended
approval of this item on Jan. 19, 2022, by a vote of 4-0.
Public Outreach
Prior to and during the rollout of the SBFAP Pilot, Valley Metro's business assistance
coordinators and Prestamos staff canvassed the corridors and visited all businesses
on the alignment to introduce the Pilot and explain the application process in English
and Spanish. They also handed out fliers, left door-knocker pamphlets, sent email
blasts, and called each business to announce the Pilot. Prestamos and Valley Metro
staff continue to conduct canvassing aimed at businesses who have not applied to the
Pilot or completed the application process. In addition, the Pilot is receiving ongoing
promotion with monthly business-assistance newsletters and phone call/emails to
Page 211
businesses. A promotional video was also filmed with Councilmember Carlos Garcia.
Location
The Northwest Extension Phase II will run along Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue, then
north to Mountain View Road, and then west across Interstate 17, via an elevated
structure over the freeway, to its terminus adjacent to Metrocenter Mall.
Council Districts: 1, 3 and 5
The South Central Extension Downtown Hub will run along Central Avenue, from
Jefferson Street to Baseline Road.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.
Page 212
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to continue the Light Rail
Small Business Financial Assistance Program (SBFAP) Pilot underway along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub (SCE/DH) and the Northwest Extension
Phase II (NWEII) light rail alignments through the duration of construction for both
projects, which are anticipated for completion in 2024, and to expand the eligibility
criteria as recommended below.
Summary
The SBFAP Pilot, funded through T2050 and the Phoenix Community Development
Investment Corporation (PCDIC), is facilitated by Valley Metro and administered by
Prestamos CDFI, LLC. The Pilot opened for applications in mid-March 2021. As the
Pilot's initial year is scheduled to expire in March 2022, this report provides information
on the Pilot's current state and recommendations for modifying and continuing the
Pilot.
Program Pilot
In response to requests from area businesses, the SBFAP Pilot was created to provide
direct financial assistance to help mitigate commercial interruptions for locally-owned
small and micro businesses that have been directly impacted by construction along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub and the Northwest Extension Phase II light
rail extension corridors. The Pilot has a two-tiered approach to provide funding:
· Tier I - offers $3,000 in program year financial assistance; and
· Tier II - offers up to $9,000 in program year assistance based on demonstrated
revenue impact during the construction period.
The current SBFAP Pilot's eligibility criteria for affected businesses are:
Tier I
· Be physically located on, or directly accessed from: 1) Central Avenue, between
Jefferson Street and Baseline Road (for SCE/DH); 2) Dunlap Avenue, between 19th
and 25th Avenues (for NWEII); 3) 25th Avenue, between Dunlap Avenue and
Mountain View Road (for NWEII); 4) Mountain View Road, from 25th Avenue to the
Page 209
former Metrocenter Mall property (for NWEII); or 5) the Metrocenter Mall property,
as eligible businesses in the former Metrocenter Mall property are also within the
program boundaries (for NWEII);
· Be a locally owned business with 15 or fewer employees and $500,000 or less in
annual revenue for the overall business;
· Be currently open and operational on the affected light rail construction alignment
with posted hours of operation, as well as open and operational prior to the start of
construction;
· Conduct business directly with consumers where transactions primarily take place
at the location on the affected construction alignment;
· Be able to provide all necessary documents to verify program eligibility;
· Be in good standing with all local, state, and federal taxing and licensing authorities;
and
· Sign a waiver releasing the City, Valley Metro, and any contractors selected to run
the SBFAP Pilot from any claims related to revenue impacts arising out of light rail
planning, design, and construction activities in order to receive this Pilot's funding
support.
Tier II
· Meet all the requirements of Tier I;
· Be operational at least one year prior to the start of construction; and
· Demonstrate, via financial business records, a loss in revenue after the
commencement of construction and related activities in comparison with the same
period in the year prior to the start of construction.
The SBFAP Pilot's application is available online and in paper format in both English
and Spanish. Business owners can also get assistance completing the application via
an in-person visit with Prestamos staff at the location of their choice or by telephone.
Staff has gathered information and developed recommendations for consideration in
continuing the SBFAP Pilot beyond the current program year. To date, 58 businesses
have received more than $300,000 in financial assistance through this Pilot. An
additional 20 applications are currently in process.
The following provides a couple of examples of customer feedback demonstrating the
impact of the funds: “The process was very simple. We got the funds within two weeks.
We used it for payroll to keep our employees. Having the extra income to help pay our
bills really helped us.” Carlos Castillo, Owner, Chino-Mex. “The program has
tremendously helped me and I really appreciate it if I can continue to receive help and
Page 210
until this construction is over. I really appreciate it and thanks a million.” Samson
Davis, Owner, Sam's Barber and Stylist School.
The City of Phoenix and Valley Metro recommends approval to continue the SBFAP
through the duration of construction, anticipated for completion on or about Dec. 31,
2024, and to revise eligibility criteria to better serve the needs of businesses along the
South Central Extension/Downtown Hub and the Northwest Extension Phase II light
rail extension.
Recommended Eligibility Criteria Revisions
To better meet the needs of businesses in these corridors by increasing access to the
funding, staff recommends revising the eligibility criteria as shown below:
· Increase the business annual revenue threshold from not more than $500,000 to
not more than $750,000; and
· Allow all otherwise eligible businesses that were open prior to the start of
construction to participate by removing the requirement for businesses to have
been open not less than one year prior to construction.
Financial Impact
This report does not seek approval of any additional funding. The extension of the
program will utilize funds already allocated in the budget and approved during the
creation of the SBFAP.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· The City Council approved implementation of the SBFAP Pilot (Ordinance S-47126)
on Dec. 2, 2020.
· The Citizens Transportation Commission recommended approval of this item on
Dec. 16, 2021, by a vote of 11-0.
· The Transportation Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee recommended
approval of this item on Jan. 19, 2022, by a vote of 4-0.
Public Outreach
Prior to and during the rollout of the SBFAP Pilot, Valley Metro's business assistance
coordinators and Prestamos staff canvassed the corridors and visited all businesses
on the alignment to introduce the Pilot and explain the application process in English
and Spanish. They also handed out fliers, left door-knocker pamphlets, sent email
blasts, and called each business to announce the Pilot. Prestamos and Valley Metro
staff continue to conduct canvassing aimed at businesses who have not applied to the
Pilot or completed the application process. In addition, the Pilot is receiving ongoing
promotion with monthly business-assistance newsletters and phone call/emails to
Page 211
businesses. A promotional video was also filmed with Councilmember Carlos Garcia.
Location
The Northwest Extension Phase II will run along Dunlap Avenue to 25th Avenue, then
north to Mountain View Road, and then west across Interstate 17, via an elevated
structure over the freeway, to its terminus adjacent to Metrocenter Mall.
Council Districts: 1, 3 and 5
The South Central Extension Downtown Hub will run along Central Avenue, from
Jefferson Street to Baseline Road.
Council Districts: 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Public Transit
Department.
Page 212
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Purchase of Two MicroTraxx Loaders (Ordinance S-48311)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Rohmac, Inc. to purchase two MicroTraxx loaders for cleaning culverts and other
areas. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. This item will have a total amount of up to $254,071.
Summary
Rohmac, Inc. is the producer and sole distributor of the remote controlled MicroTraxx
track loader. This equipment allows City personnel to clean culverts and other areas
that are difficult to maneuver. It removes debris in an efficient manner, and keeps
workers from having to encounter potentially hazardous material in a confined space. It
is the only loader of its size and capability available on the market today.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of a determination memo, citing sole source. Rohmac, Inc. is the sole source
for the MicroTraxx remote control track loader in the world. Below is the price of one
MicroTraxx:
MicroTraxx: $115,487 (including tax)
Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of two MicroTraxx loaders, starting on or
about Council approval, Feb. 2, 2022.
Financial Impact
This contract will have a one-time total amount of up to $254,071.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Public Works departments.
Page 213
Report
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Rohmac, Inc. to purchase two MicroTraxx loaders for cleaning culverts and other
areas. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. This item will have a total amount of up to $254,071.
Summary
Rohmac, Inc. is the producer and sole distributor of the remote controlled MicroTraxx
track loader. This equipment allows City personnel to clean culverts and other areas
that are difficult to maneuver. It removes debris in an efficient manner, and keeps
workers from having to encounter potentially hazardous material in a confined space. It
is the only loader of its size and capability available on the market today.
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of a determination memo, citing sole source. Rohmac, Inc. is the sole source
for the MicroTraxx remote control track loader in the world. Below is the price of one
MicroTraxx:
MicroTraxx: $115,487 (including tax)
Contract Term
This item will be for the one-time purchase of two MicroTraxx loaders, starting on or
about Council approval, Feb. 2, 2022.
Financial Impact
This contract will have a one-time total amount of up to $254,071.
Funding is available in the Street Transportation Department's budget.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Public Works departments.
Page 213
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend Ordinance S-47307 - Mutual Aid Intergovernmental Agreement for Waste
Collection and Transportation (Ordinance S-48315)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
the Intergovernmental Agreement authorized by Ordinance S-47307, to include the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community as a party for Waste Collection and
Transportation Mutual Aid.
Summary
The purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is to define procedures for
participating jurisdictions to request emergency assistance and supply resources for
waste collection and transportation or other assistance in emergencies, identify
available resources and inventory, and provide a mechanism for maintenance and
repair of these resources. Resources include, but are not limited to, automated side
loaders, bin/barrel delivery vehicles, front loaders, rear loaders, backhoes, front-end
load tractors, pick-up trucks, mobile equipment, trailers and dump trucks.
Contract Term
The agreement term will remain unchanged, ending on June 30, 2026.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Waste Collection and Transportation Mutual Aid IGA
(Ordinance S-47307) on Feb. 17, 2021.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the Public Works Department associated with this IGA.
Location
Council Districts: Citywide and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 214
Report
Collection and Transportation (Ordinance S-48315)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
the Intergovernmental Agreement authorized by Ordinance S-47307, to include the
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community as a party for Waste Collection and
Transportation Mutual Aid.
Summary
The purpose of the Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is to define procedures for
participating jurisdictions to request emergency assistance and supply resources for
waste collection and transportation or other assistance in emergencies, identify
available resources and inventory, and provide a mechanism for maintenance and
repair of these resources. Resources include, but are not limited to, automated side
loaders, bin/barrel delivery vehicles, front loaders, rear loaders, backhoes, front-end
load tractors, pick-up trucks, mobile equipment, trailers and dump trucks.
Contract Term
The agreement term will remain unchanged, ending on June 30, 2026.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the Waste Collection and Transportation Mutual Aid IGA
(Ordinance S-47307) on Feb. 17, 2021.
Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the Public Works Department associated with this IGA.
Location
Council Districts: Citywide and Out of City
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Public Works
Department.
Page 214
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan Implementation - Design Services
Amendment - PA75200553 (Ordinance S-48314)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 145602 with Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. to reaffirm
Council authorization for Design Services for the Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan
Implementation 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.
There is no additional fee for services included in this amendment.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to redevelop Margaret T. Hance Park, which is an
existing 32-acre urban park over Interstate Highway 10 within downtown Phoenix. The
redevelopment project site spans one mile between 3rd Street and 5th Avenue and is
under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Transportation. The estimated total
cost for the design and phased construction for this project is $118 million over multiple
fiscal years as outlined in the Hance Park Master Plan 2016 Final Design Report.
This amendment is necessary because previously executed amendment extensions
have expired due to project phasing and funding sources being provided periodically
through philanthropic investments and grants. This amendment will provide for the
Council authorized seven years to be continuous from the original execution date of
the agreement and to continue providing design services.
Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.’s additional services include, but
are not limited to: final design, permit and bid support; preparation of a separate
standalone Phase 1B construction documents package; and temporary landscape
treatment design to connect the garden to adjacent existing conditions.
Contract Term
This amendment will provide for the Council authorized seven years to be continuous
from the original execution date of the agreement. 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
Page 215
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement was authorized for an amount not-to-exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· Amendment 1 increased the agreement value by $8.3 million, for a new total
amount not-to-exceed $13.3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable
costs.
· This amendment will reaffirm previous Council authorizations for a total amount not-
to-exceed $13.3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available through philanthropic investments and grants and in the Parks
and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
the execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for
all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Parks, Arts, Education and Equality Subcommittee recommended City Council
approval to enter into an agreement with Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture,
D.P.C. to provide Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan Implementation Design
Services - Project PA75200553-1 on May 24, 2017, by a vote of 3-0.
The City Council approved:
· Design Services Agreement 145602 (Ordinance S-43648) on July 6, 2017; and
· Design Services Agreement 145602 Amendment 1 (Ordinance S-44819) on June
20, 2018.
Public Outreach
Public outreach and community participation will be conducted on an as-needed basis.
Location
Margaret T. Hance Park is an existing 32-acre urban park located over Interstate 10,
within downtown Phoenix. The redevelopment project site spans one mile between 3rd
Street and 5th Avenue.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Mario Paniagua,
the Parks and Recreation Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 216
Report
Amendment - PA75200553 (Ordinance S-48314)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 145602 with Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture, D.P.C. to reaffirm
Council authorization for Design Services for the Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan
Implementation 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.
There is no additional fee for services included in this amendment.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to redevelop Margaret T. Hance Park, which is an
existing 32-acre urban park over Interstate Highway 10 within downtown Phoenix. The
redevelopment project site spans one mile between 3rd Street and 5th Avenue and is
under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Transportation. The estimated total
cost for the design and phased construction for this project is $118 million over multiple
fiscal years as outlined in the Hance Park Master Plan 2016 Final Design Report.
This amendment is necessary because previously executed amendment extensions
have expired due to project phasing and funding sources being provided periodically
through philanthropic investments and grants. This amendment will provide for the
Council authorized seven years to be continuous from the original execution date of
the agreement and to continue providing design services.
Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture, D.P.C.’s additional services include, but
are not limited to: final design, permit and bid support; preparation of a separate
standalone Phase 1B construction documents package; and temporary landscape
treatment design to connect the garden to adjacent existing conditions.
Contract Term
This amendment will provide for the Council authorized seven years to be continuous
from the original execution date of the agreement. 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
Page 215
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement was authorized for an amount not-to-exceed $5 million,
including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· Amendment 1 increased the agreement value by $8.3 million, for a new total
amount not-to-exceed $13.3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable
costs.
· This amendment will reaffirm previous Council authorizations for a total amount not-
to-exceed $13.3 million, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
Funding is available through philanthropic investments and grants and in the Parks
and Recreation Department's Capital Improvement Program budget. The Budget and
Research Department will separately review and approve funding availability prior to
the execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to agreement limits for
all rendered agreement services, which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Parks, Arts, Education and Equality Subcommittee recommended City Council
approval to enter into an agreement with Hargreaves Jones Landscape Architecture,
D.P.C. to provide Margaret T. Hance Park Master Plan Implementation Design
Services - Project PA75200553-1 on May 24, 2017, by a vote of 3-0.
The City Council approved:
· Design Services Agreement 145602 (Ordinance S-43648) on July 6, 2017; and
· Design Services Agreement 145602 Amendment 1 (Ordinance S-44819) on June
20, 2018.
Public Outreach
Public outreach and community participation will be conducted on an as-needed basis.
Location
Margaret T. Hance Park is an existing 32-acre urban park located over Interstate 10,
within downtown Phoenix. The redevelopment project site spans one mile between 3rd
Street and 5th Avenue.
Council District: 7
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson and Mario Paniagua,
the Parks and Recreation Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 216
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Parking Meter Mechanisms and Accessories Contract Recommendation
(Ordinance S-48318)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
IPS Group, Inc. to provide single-space parking meters, payment processing, and
associated back-end support software systems and services. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The total contract value will not exceed $4.3 million.
Summary
The City's Parking Meter Program provides an important source of revenue to the City
but also provides a benefit to downtown businesses, restaurants, and events by
managing access and use of on-street parking in the downtown and midtown areas of
Phoenix. The Street Transportation Department (Streets) manages the program and
continuously works to improve the parking meter system to meet the needs of the
public.
Streets currently operates a mix of approximately 1,700 smart parking meters and 500
older coin-only parking meters for a total of 2,200 parking meters. The coin-only
parking meters have operated in areas of low parking demand. The smart meters
operate on a proprietary financial software that utilizes wireless technology for two-way
communications with the parking meters to accept and monitor payments, monitor
their status and use, provide remote diagnostics, and allow for settings to be changed
remotely. The 1,700 smart meters were purchased and installed in 2013 and are
nearing the end of their anticipated ten-year service life.
As part of the contract, IPS Group, Inc. will replace all 2,200 parking meters with new
smart parking meters and will provide wireless communications and monitoring
services for the smart meters under this new contract. The contract will also allow
Streets to upgrade parking meter mechanisms to current technologies. The new smart
parking meters will include a five-year warranty period.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Page 217
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, a Request for Proposals (RFP 63-
2201) was conducted. Proposals were received from three firms, and all three
proposers were deemed responsive. The selection committee was made up of four
staff members from Streets and one member from outside of the City of Phoenix. The
committee thoroughly reviewed and scored all proposals based on the evaluation
criteria, which included Technical Specifications (225 points), Method of Approach (250
points), Data Management System (200 points), Telecommunication and Reporting (75
points), Value Added Services (25 points), Reference Checks (25 points), and Price
(200 points) for a total of 1,000 points maximum. The panel reached consensus in
recommending award of the contract to IPS Group, Inc. The proposers and their
scores are listed below:
IPS Group, Inc.: 767.50
Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc.: 612.50
MacKay Meters, Inc.: 601.00
Contract Term
The contract term is for a five-year period, commencing March 1, 2022, and ending
Feb. 28, 2027. Provisions of the contract include an option to extend the term for an
additional five years, which may be exercised by the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
The contract will have an estimated initial capital investment of $1.8 million for the
purchase of new parking meters. The total contract amount will not exceed $4.3 million
over the initial five-year term of the contract.
Funding is available in the Streets' Capital Improvement Program and Operating
budgets.
The City anticipates parking meter revenues will exceed $12.5 million over the initial
five-year term of the contract.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval to issue a Request for Proposals on April 7, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.
The City Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals on May 19, 2021.
Location
Page 218
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 219
Report
(Ordinance S-48318)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
IPS Group, Inc. to provide single-space parking meters, payment processing, and
associated back-end support software systems and services. Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept, and the City Controller to disburse, all funds
related to this item. The total contract value will not exceed $4.3 million.
Summary
The City's Parking Meter Program provides an important source of revenue to the City
but also provides a benefit to downtown businesses, restaurants, and events by
managing access and use of on-street parking in the downtown and midtown areas of
Phoenix. The Street Transportation Department (Streets) manages the program and
continuously works to improve the parking meter system to meet the needs of the
public.
Streets currently operates a mix of approximately 1,700 smart parking meters and 500
older coin-only parking meters for a total of 2,200 parking meters. The coin-only
parking meters have operated in areas of low parking demand. The smart meters
operate on a proprietary financial software that utilizes wireless technology for two-way
communications with the parking meters to accept and monitor payments, monitor
their status and use, provide remote diagnostics, and allow for settings to be changed
remotely. The 1,700 smart meters were purchased and installed in 2013 and are
nearing the end of their anticipated ten-year service life.
As part of the contract, IPS Group, Inc. will replace all 2,200 parking meters with new
smart parking meters and will provide wireless communications and monitoring
services for the smart meters under this new contract. The contract will also allow
Streets to upgrade parking meter mechanisms to current technologies. The new smart
parking meters will include a five-year warranty period.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services
Department.
Page 217
Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, a Request for Proposals (RFP 63-
2201) was conducted. Proposals were received from three firms, and all three
proposers were deemed responsive. The selection committee was made up of four
staff members from Streets and one member from outside of the City of Phoenix. The
committee thoroughly reviewed and scored all proposals based on the evaluation
criteria, which included Technical Specifications (225 points), Method of Approach (250
points), Data Management System (200 points), Telecommunication and Reporting (75
points), Value Added Services (25 points), Reference Checks (25 points), and Price
(200 points) for a total of 1,000 points maximum. The panel reached consensus in
recommending award of the contract to IPS Group, Inc. The proposers and their
scores are listed below:
IPS Group, Inc.: 767.50
Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc.: 612.50
MacKay Meters, Inc.: 601.00
Contract Term
The contract term is for a five-year period, commencing March 1, 2022, and ending
Feb. 28, 2027. Provisions of the contract include an option to extend the term for an
additional five years, which may be exercised by the City Manager or designee.
Financial Impact
The contract will have an estimated initial capital investment of $1.8 million for the
purchase of new parking meters. The total contract amount will not exceed $4.3 million
over the initial five-year term of the contract.
Funding is available in the Streets' Capital Improvement Program and Operating
budgets.
The City anticipates parking meter revenues will exceed $12.5 million over the initial
five-year term of the contract.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee recommended City
Council approval to issue a Request for Proposals on April 7, 2021, by a vote of 4-0.
The City Council approved the issuance of a Request for Proposals on May 19, 2021.
Location
Page 218
Council Districts: 4, 7 and 8
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Mario Paniagua and the Street
Transportation Department.
Page 219
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Emergency Repair Job Order Contract Program
Engineering Services - Amendment - WS90500232 (Ordinance S-48298)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 149486 with Brown and Caldwell, Inc., to provide additional engineering
services for the Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Emergency Repair Job Order Contract
program. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for
services included in this amendment will not exceed $400,000.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide sufficient resources for immediate response to
emergency needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week to support the City's Sanitary
Sewer and Lift Station Repair Job Order Contract program.
This amendment is necessary because the program is evolving and there is an
increased need for construction administration and inspection services to monitor the
contractor. The contract has already supported approximately 40 emergency repairs
and a number of these repairs required extensive engineering services, using the
existing value faster than budgeted. This amendment will provide additional funds to
the agreement to ensure continuation of timely repairs.
Contract Term
There is no change to the term of the agreement. Work scope identified and
incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the
parties, and work may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for a fee not-to-
exceed $730,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $400,000, for a new
total not-to-exceed agreement value of $1.13 million, including all subconsultants
and reimbursable costs.
Page 220
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Engineering Services Agreement 149486 (Ordinance S-
45439) on March 20, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 221
Report
Engineering Services - Amendment - WS90500232 (Ordinance S-48298)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 149486 with Brown and Caldwell, Inc., to provide additional engineering
services for the Sanitary Sewer and Lift Station Emergency Repair Job Order Contract
program. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for
services included in this amendment will not exceed $400,000.
Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide sufficient resources for immediate response to
emergency needs 24 hours a day, seven days a week to support the City's Sanitary
Sewer and Lift Station Repair Job Order Contract program.
This amendment is necessary because the program is evolving and there is an
increased need for construction administration and inspection services to monitor the
contractor. The contract has already supported approximately 40 emergency repairs
and a number of these repairs required extensive engineering services, using the
existing value faster than budgeted. This amendment will provide additional funds to
the agreement to ensure continuation of timely repairs.
Contract Term
There is no change to the term of the agreement. Work scope identified and
incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the
parties, and work may extend past the termination of the agreement. No additional
changes may be executed after the end of the term.
Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for a fee not-to-
exceed $730,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $400,000, for a new
total not-to-exceed agreement value of $1.13 million, including all subconsultants
and reimbursable costs.
Page 220
Funding for this amendment is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget. The Budget and Research Department will separately
review and approve funding availability prior to the execution of any amendments.
Payments may be made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services,
which may extend past the agreement termination.
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Engineering Services Agreement 149486 (Ordinance S-
45439) on March 20, 2019.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.
Page 221
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Salt River Project Construction and Service Agreements for Deer Valley Water
Treatment Plant Cortez Substation (Ordinance S-48303)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into four agreements
with Salt River Project, to provide Professional Services that include design,
procurement, and construction services for the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Cortez Substation. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $600,000.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code section 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 section 42-18.
Summary
Maintenance testing of the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant (DVWTP) Salt River
Project (SRP) Substation transformer protectors identified that each of the two
transformer protectors have reached the end of their useful lifecycle and there are no
longer spare parts available for repairs. The transformer protectors will no longer
adequately protect the substation transformer from explosion or fire as required by the
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). The transformer protectors will be upgraded
to the latest available technology models in order to meet the NFPA requirements and
provide protection of the transformers to maintain power to the DVWTP.
The objective is to improve DVWTP's ability to continue delivering potable water to
customers during potential local transformer failure that would result in a complete
plant power outage. The project elements are as follows:
· Replacement of two DVWTP transformer protectors at SRP's existing Cortez
substation serving the DVWTP. Without properly functioning transformer protectors,
the substation is at risk of fire or explosion in the event of transformer failure.
· The City has requested SRP to perform the design, procurement, and construction
for replacement of the two City-owned transformer protectors, at SRP's existing
Cortez substation. Contracting out to SRP will provide the necessary checks and
balances to ensure SRP substation design and NFPA protection standards are
Page 222
being met to adequately protect the substation transformers.
Contract Term
The contract term is four years starting on or about February 2022.
Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $600,000 is available in the Water Services Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.
The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all services rendered, which may extend past the agreement
termination.
Location
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 223
Report
Treatment Plant Cortez Substation (Ordinance S-48303)
Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into four agreements
with Salt River Project, to provide Professional Services that include design,
procurement, and construction services for the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Cortez Substation. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $600,000.
Additionally, request the City Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City
Code section 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 section 42-18.
Summary
Maintenance testing of the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant (DVWTP) Salt River
Project (SRP) Substation transformer protectors identified that each of the two
transformer protectors have reached the end of their useful lifecycle and there are no
longer spare parts available for repairs. The transformer protectors will no longer
adequately protect the substation transformer from explosion or fire as required by the
National Fire Protection Agency (NFPA). The transformer protectors will be upgraded
to the latest available technology models in order to meet the NFPA requirements and
provide protection of the transformers to maintain power to the DVWTP.
The objective is to improve DVWTP's ability to continue delivering potable water to
customers during potential local transformer failure that would result in a complete
plant power outage. The project elements are as follows:
· Replacement of two DVWTP transformer protectors at SRP's existing Cortez
substation serving the DVWTP. Without properly functioning transformer protectors,
the substation is at risk of fire or explosion in the event of transformer failure.
· The City has requested SRP to perform the design, procurement, and construction
for replacement of the two City-owned transformer protectors, at SRP's existing
Cortez substation. Contracting out to SRP will provide the necessary checks and
balances to ensure SRP substation design and NFPA protection standards are
Page 222
being met to adequately protect the substation transformers.
Contract Term
The contract term is four years starting on or about February 2022.
Financial Impact
Funding in the amount of $600,000 is available in the Water Services Department's
Capital Improvement Program budget.
The Budget and Research Department will separately review and approve funding
availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be made up to
agreement limits for all services rendered, which may extend past the agreement
termination.
Location
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 1
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.
Page 223
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Final Plat - Talinn Phase 3 - PLAT 210048 - Northeast Corner of Deer Valley Drive
and 56th Street
Plat: 210048
Project: 06-657
Name of Plat: Talinn Phase 3
Owner: D.R. Horton, Inc.
Engineer: Brian J. Diel, RLS
Request: A 279 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 6, 2022
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of Deer Valley Drive and 56th Street.
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 224
Report
and 56th Street
Plat: 210048
Project: 06-657
Name of Plat: Talinn Phase 3
Owner: D.R. Horton, Inc.
Engineer: Brian J. Diel, RLS
Request: A 279 Lot Residential Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Jan. 6, 2022
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only
Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.
Location
Generally located at the northeast corner of Deer Valley Drive and 56th Street.
Council District: 2
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 224
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-35-17-1 -
Approximately 390 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 24th Avenue and Lone
Cactus Drive (Ordinance G-6951)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 DVAO (Multifamily Residence District, Deer Valley Airport Overlay) to A-1 DVAO
(Light Industrial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay) for a moving and storage facility.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5 DVAO
Proposed Zoning: A-1 DVAO
Acreage: 2.05 acres
Proposed Use: Moving and storage facility
Owner: Douglas A. Rupp
Applicant: Douglas A. Rupp
Representative: Brenda Johnson
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on May 13,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: This case was continued by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2021,
Sept. 2, 2021, Nov. 4 2021 and Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard the
case on Jan. 6, 2022 and recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0
vote.
Location
Approximately 390 feet north of the northeast corner of 24th Avenue and Lone Cactus
Drive
Council District: 1
Parcel Addresses: 21435 and 21449 N. 24th Ave.
Page 225
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 226
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-35-17-1) FROM R-5 DVAO (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY) TO
A-1 DVAO (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT
OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.05-acre site located approximately 390 feet
north of the northeast corner of 24th Avenue and Lone Cactus Drive in a portion of
Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “R-5 DVAO” (Multifamily Residence District, Deer Valley
Airport Overlay) to “A-1 DVAO” (Light Industrial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay).
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 227
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The building height shall not exceed 30 feet.
2. The public sidewalk along 24th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape area located between the sidewalk and back of curb and
planted to the standards below. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
a. Large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed 25 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings. Fifty percent of the required trees shall
be a minimum 3-inch caliper and 50 percent shall be a minimum 2-inch
caliper.
b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.
c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum
mature height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.
3. All perimeter building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as material changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. A minimum building setback of 50 feet shall be provided along the east
property line, abutting residential zoning.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east and
north property lines and shall include shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings. 25 percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch caliper
and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
6. The developer shall plant shade trees in and around the employee and
customer parking area to provide shade for 25 percent of the parking area at
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development.
7. A solid wall shall be constructed along the north and east property lines
adjacent to residential uses. The walls shall consist of solid masonry or similar
material and shall include material and textural differences, such as stucco
and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 228
8. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
9. The developer shall dedicate 4-feet of right-of-way for the east side of the
property for a total 20 foot-wide alley, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix 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.
11. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
12. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
14. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Page 229
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 230
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-35-17-1
Within a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
21435 N 24TH STREET (#209-07-17): Lot 17, of Black Canyon Heights, according to
the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona
recorded in book 56 of Maps page 14. S/T/R: 24 4 North 2 East. MCR# 5614
21435 N 24TH STREET (#209-07-14): Lot 14, of Black Canyon Heights, according to
the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona
recorded in book 56 of Maps page 14. S/T/R: 24 4 North 2 East. MCR# 5614
Page 231
Page 232
Report
Approximately 390 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 24th Avenue and Lone
Cactus Drive (Ordinance G-6951)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-5 DVAO (Multifamily Residence District, Deer Valley Airport Overlay) to A-1 DVAO
(Light Industrial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay) for a moving and storage facility.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-5 DVAO
Proposed Zoning: A-1 DVAO
Acreage: 2.05 acres
Proposed Use: Moving and storage facility
Owner: Douglas A. Rupp
Applicant: Douglas A. Rupp
Representative: Brenda Johnson
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on May 13,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: This case was continued by the Planning Commission on June 3, 2021,
Sept. 2, 2021, Nov. 4 2021 and Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard the
case on Jan. 6, 2022 and recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village
Planning Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0
vote.
Location
Approximately 390 feet north of the northeast corner of 24th Avenue and Lone Cactus
Drive
Council District: 1
Parcel Addresses: 21435 and 21449 N. 24th Ave.
Page 225
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 226
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-35-17-1) FROM R-5 DVAO (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT OVERLAY) TO
A-1 DVAO (LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, DEER VALLEY AIRPORT
OVERLAY).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 2.05-acre site located approximately 390 feet
north of the northeast corner of 24th Avenue and Lone Cactus Drive in a portion of
Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “R-5 DVAO” (Multifamily Residence District, Deer Valley
Airport Overlay) to “A-1 DVAO” (Light Industrial, Deer Valley Airport Overlay).
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 227
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The building height shall not exceed 30 feet.
2. The public sidewalk along 24th Avenue shall be detached with a minimum 5-
foot-wide landscape area located between the sidewalk and back of curb and
planted to the standards below. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with the creation of a comfortable pedestrian environment.
a. Large canopy, single-trunk, shade trees shall be placed 25 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings. Fifty percent of the required trees shall
be a minimum 3-inch caliper and 50 percent shall be a minimum 2-inch
caliper.
b. At tree maturity, the trees shall shade the sidewalks to a minimum 75
percent.
c. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers with a maximum
mature height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75 percent live
coverage at maturity.
3. All perimeter building elevations shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as material changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in
window size and location, and/or overhang canopies, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. A minimum building setback of 50 feet shall be provided along the east
property line, abutting residential zoning.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east and
north property lines and shall include shade trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings. 25 percent of the trees shall be minimum 4-inch caliper
and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum 3-inch caliper, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
6. The developer shall plant shade trees in and around the employee and
customer parking area to provide shade for 25 percent of the parking area at
maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development.
7. A solid wall shall be constructed along the north and east property lines
adjacent to residential uses. The walls shall consist of solid masonry or similar
material and shall include material and textural differences, such as stucco
and/or split face block with a decorative element, such as tile or stamped
designs, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 228
8. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
9. The developer shall dedicate 4-feet of right-of-way for the east side of the
property for a total 20 foot-wide alley, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
10. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix 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.
11. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
12. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
14. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
Page 229
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 230
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-35-17-1
Within a portion of Section 24, Township 4 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt
River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described
as follows:
21435 N 24TH STREET (#209-07-17): Lot 17, of Black Canyon Heights, according to
the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona
recorded in book 56 of Maps page 14. S/T/R: 24 4 North 2 East. MCR# 5614
21435 N 24TH STREET (#209-07-14): Lot 14, of Black Canyon Heights, according to
the plat of record in the office of the County Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona
recorded in book 56 of Maps page 14. S/T/R: 24 4 North 2 East. MCR# 5614
Page 231
Page 232
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-44-21-2
(Modera Kierland PUD) - Southwest Corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale
Road (Ordinance G-6954)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 PCD (Intermediate Commercial District, Planned Community District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily and commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 PCD
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 6.80 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Owner: 16000 Scottsdale, LLC
Applicant: Mill Creek Residential
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Aug. 13,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec.
6, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a modified
stipulation and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with additional stipulations and a deleted stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Southwest corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16000 N. Scottsdale Road
Page 233
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 234
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-44-21-2) FROM C-2 PCD (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 6.80-acre site located on the southwest
corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 3
North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed
from “C-2 PCD” (Intermediate Commercial District, Planned Community District) to
“PUD” (Planned Unit Development District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 235
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 Modera Kierland PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 29, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: June 28, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
Hearing Draft: October 29, 2021
b. Pages 10 and 12, Streetscape adjacent to Paradise Lane and 71st
Street: Both Paradise Lane and 71st Street require the X-E Street
Section. An E section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk is required and a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape
area is required.
c. Page 14, Section D5: Update verbiage to indicate that shade requirement
is for both public sidewalks and private pathways to require 75 percent
shade on all public sidewalks and private pathways.
d. Page 18, Amenities: The applicant shall add the following language to
the development narrative: One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall
be provided and maintained along the 71st Street frontage. The bicycle
repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility
and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and
a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while
making adjustments to the bike.
e. Page 13, Section D2.g: Modify the standards to: Minimum 7,500-square
foot entry court and event lawn to be located near a main entrance of the
building at grade and have no permanent occupiable buildings or
structures on it.
f. Page 13, Section D3.a: Revise from “Unreserved Retail/Visitor” to state
“Unreserved Retail/Restaurant/Visitor”.
g. Page 10, Section D1.c: Revise South (Interior) setback to 28 feet
(Minimum).
Page 236
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and reconstruct bus stop pad along
southbound Scottsdale Road south of Paradise Lane. The bus stop pad shall
be compliant with City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth
of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection according to
percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
6. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
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 237
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
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 238
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-44-21-2
PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST,
GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARCOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
LOT 4, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT OF KIERLAND PARCELS 4C & 6B,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 468, PAGE 47, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.
Page 239
Page 240
Report
(Modera Kierland PUD) - Southwest Corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale
Road (Ordinance G-6954)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 PCD (Intermediate Commercial District, Planned Community District) to PUD
(Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily and commercial uses.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 PCD
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 6.80 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential and commercial uses
Owner: 16000 Scottsdale, LLC
Applicant: Mill Creek Residential
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Aug. 13,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec.
6, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with a modified
stipulation and an additional stipulation, by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with additional stipulations and a deleted stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Southwest corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale Road.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: 16000 N. Scottsdale Road
Page 233
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 234
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-44-21-2) FROM C-2 PCD (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO PUD
(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 6.80-acre site located on the southwest
corner of Paradise Lane and Scottsdale Road in a portion of Section 3, Township 3
North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed
from “C-2 PCD” (Intermediate Commercial District, Planned Community District) to
“PUD” (Planned Unit Development District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 235
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 Modera Kierland PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 29, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: June 28, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
Hearing Draft: October 29, 2021
b. Pages 10 and 12, Streetscape adjacent to Paradise Lane and 71st
Street: Both Paradise Lane and 71st Street require the X-E Street
Section. An E section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk is required and a minimum 8-foot-wide landscape
area is required.
c. Page 14, Section D5: Update verbiage to indicate that shade requirement
is for both public sidewalks and private pathways to require 75 percent
shade on all public sidewalks and private pathways.
d. Page 18, Amenities: The applicant shall add the following language to
the development narrative: One bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall
be provided and maintained along the 71st Street frontage. The bicycle
repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high visibility
and separated from vehicular maneuvering areas, where applicable. The
repair station shall include: standard repair tools affixed to the station; a
tire gauge and pump affixed to the base of the station or the ground; and
a bicycle repair stand which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while
making adjustments to the bike.
e. Page 13, Section D2.g: Modify the standards to: Minimum 7,500-square
foot entry court and event lawn to be located near a main entrance of the
building at grade and have no permanent occupiable buildings or
structures on it.
f. Page 13, Section D3.a: Revise from “Unreserved Retail/Visitor” to state
“Unreserved Retail/Restaurant/Visitor”.
g. Page 10, Section D1.c: Revise South (Interior) setback to 28 feet
(Minimum).
Page 236
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and reconstruct bus stop pad along
southbound Scottsdale Road south of Paradise Lane. The bus stop pad shall
be compliant with City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 with a minimum depth
of 10 feet. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from the intersection according to
percent shade coverage to the bus stop pad at full maturity, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Scottsdale Municipal Airport (SDL) to future
owners or tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents
shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
5. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
6. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
7. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
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 237
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
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 238
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-44-21-2
PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST,
GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARCOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
LOT 4, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN PLAT OF KIERLAND PARCELS 4C & 6B,
ACCORDING TO BOOK 468, PAGE 47, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.
Page 239
Page 240
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-66-21-2 -
Approximately 600 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of Black Canyon Highway
and Sonoran Desert Drive (Ordinance G-6956)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PCD NBCOD, approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to R-3A NBCOD (Multifamily Residential, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) to remove the PCD designation and allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: R-3A NBCOD
Acreage: 17.63 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Lone Mountain Road Investors
Applicant: IDM
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation by a vote of 4-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee
recommendation with two modified stipulations and an additional stipulation by a vote
of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 600 feet east of the northeast corner of Black Canyon Highway and
Sonoran Desert Drive.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 241
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 242
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-66-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK, MID-
RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO R-3A NBCOD (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 17.63-acre site located approximately 600
feet east of the northeast corner of the Black Canyon Highway and Sonoran Desert
Drive in a portion of Section 14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP
M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District,
approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park, Mid-Rise, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to “R-3A NBCOD” (Multifamily Residential,
North Black Canyon Overlay District).
Page 243
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 348 dwelling units.
2. A development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between
the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing or buildings on
the west side of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be retained as open
space, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Surface parking shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the western
property line along Skunk Creek Wash, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. All elevations of the building shall contain a minimum of three building
materials as well as architectural embellishments and detailing such as textural
changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
and/or other overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All buildings and wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum 10-foot-wide public multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
a 30-foot-wide multi-use recreational trail easement (MURTE) along the north
side of Sonoran Desert Drive in accordance with Section 429 of the City of
Phoenix MAG Supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 244
8. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-
footwide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash
as indicated in Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Pedestrian pathways and sidewalks shall be shaded a minimum of 75 percent
by a structure and/or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances, public sidewalks, community amenities and the bus stop pad along
Sonoran Desert Drive, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department
12. All sidewalks along public streets shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the
bicycle racks shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
14. The necessary street right-of-way shall be dedicated, and a bus stop pad
constructed per City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 along westbound
Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from 29th Avenue according to
15. The bus stop pad along Sonoran Desert Drive shall be shaded a minimum of
50 percent using shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on an alternative design
solution consistent with a pedestrian environment.
Page 245
16. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
17. Access control for the development site shall be in compliance with the City of
Phoenix Street Planning and Design Guideline Standards, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and Master Street Plans, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 70 feet of right-of-way and construct a
City classified “A” section roadway for Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
20. The developer shall provide a minimum of three shaded pedestrian
connections from the development to the required shared-use path along the
east side of Skunk Creek Wash and a minimum of one shaded pedestrian
connection from the development to the required multi-use trail along the north
side of Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
21. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 246
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of the property the existence and operational
characteristics of active mining operations, Lift Station 66, and the North
Gateway Solid Waste and Recycling Transfer Facility. 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.
26. Prior to occupancy, signage must be provided within the development’s
sales/leasing office (or equivalent signage) that is visible to prospective renters
or purchases which discloses the existence and operational characteristics of
active mining operations, Lift Station 66, and the North Gateway Solid Waste
and Recycling Transfer Facility, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
27 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 247
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 248
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-66-21-2:
A portion of land being situated within the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section 14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3” brass cap flush accepted as the south quarter corner of
said Section 14 from which a found ½” rebar with cap RLS 21081 accepted as the
Center of said Section 14 bears North 00°21'59" West, 2645.55 feet;
Thence North 89°38'30" East, 1009.71 feet along the south line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section 14 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said south line, North 02°49'52" West, 107.92 feet; Thence North
17°58'44" West, 106.34 feet;
Thence North 16°04'14" West, 135.75 feet;
Thence North 24°53'59" West, 66.65 feet;
Thence North 27°12'27" West, 151.95 feet;
Thence North 26°41'39" West, 229.20 feet;
Thence North 42°42'39" West, 234.22 feet;
Thence North 29°09'05" West, 213.01 feet;
Thence North 25°19'17" West, 175.08 feet;
Thence North 27°20'59" West, 70.84 feet to the north line of the Southwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
Thence along said north line, North 89°35'43" East, 947.89 feet to the northeast corner
of the Southwest quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence South 00°22'06" East, 1323.84 feet along the east line of the Southwest quarter
of said Southeast quarter to the south line of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 310.10 feet along said south line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 769,058 sq. ft. (17.655 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
Page 249
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 250
Page 251
Report
Approximately 600 Feet East of the Northeast Corner of Black Canyon Highway
and Sonoran Desert Drive (Ordinance G-6956)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PCD NBCOD, approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District) to R-3A NBCOD (Multifamily Residential, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) to remove the PCD designation and allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: R-3A NBCOD
Acreage: 17.63 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Lone Mountain Road Investors
Applicant: IDM
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation by a vote of 4-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the North Gateway Village Planning Committee
recommendation with two modified stipulations and an additional stipulation by a vote
of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 600 feet east of the northeast corner of Black Canyon Highway and
Sonoran Desert Drive.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 241
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 242
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-66-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK, MID-
RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO R-3A NBCOD (MULTIFAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 17.63-acre site located approximately 600
feet east of the northeast corner of the Black Canyon Highway and Sonoran Desert
Drive in a portion of Section 14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP
M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District,
approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park, Mid-Rise, Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to “R-3A NBCOD” (Multifamily Residential,
North Black Canyon Overlay District).
Page 243
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 348 dwelling units.
2. A development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between
the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing or buildings on
the west side of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. A minimum of 15 percent of the gross site area shall be retained as open
space, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Surface parking shall be located a minimum of 50 feet from the western
property line along Skunk Creek Wash, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. All elevations of the building shall contain a minimum of three building
materials as well as architectural embellishments and detailing such as textural
changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, variation in window size and location,
and/or other overhang canopies, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. All buildings and wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. A minimum 10-foot-wide public multi-use trail (MUT) shall be constructed within
a 30-foot-wide multi-use recreational trail easement (MURTE) along the north
side of Sonoran Desert Drive in accordance with Section 429 of the City of
Phoenix MAG Supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 244
8. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-
footwide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash
as indicated in Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Pedestrian pathways and sidewalks shall be shaded a minimum of 75 percent
by a structure and/or landscaping at maturity, or a combination of the two, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances, public sidewalks, community amenities and the bus stop pad along
Sonoran Desert Drive, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department
12. All sidewalks along public streets shall be detached with a minimum 10-foot-
wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and shall
include minimum two-inch caliper shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall work with the
Planning and Development Department on an alternative design solution
consistent with a pedestrian environment.
13. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the
bicycle racks shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
14. The necessary street right-of-way shall be dedicated, and a bus stop pad
constructed per City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260 along westbound
Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The bus stop pad shall be spaced from 29th Avenue according to
15. The bus stop pad along Sonoran Desert Drive shall be shaded a minimum of
50 percent using shade trees at full maturity, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Where utility conflicts arise, the developer shall
work with the Planning and Development Department on an alternative design
solution consistent with a pedestrian environment.
Page 245
16. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
17. Access control for the development site shall be in compliance with the City of
Phoenix Street Planning and Design Guideline Standards, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and Master Street Plans, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 70 feet of right-of-way and construct a
City classified “A” section roadway for Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
20. The developer shall provide a minimum of three shaded pedestrian
connections from the development to the required shared-use path along the
east side of Skunk Creek Wash and a minimum of one shaded pedestrian
connection from the development to the required multi-use trail along the north
side of Sonoran Desert Drive, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
21. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
22. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
23. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
24. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 246
25. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of the property the existence and operational
characteristics of active mining operations, Lift Station 66, and the North
Gateway Solid Waste and Recycling Transfer Facility. 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.
26. Prior to occupancy, signage must be provided within the development’s
sales/leasing office (or equivalent signage) that is visible to prospective renters
or purchases which discloses the existence and operational characteristics of
active mining operations, Lift Station 66, and the North Gateway Solid Waste
and Recycling Transfer Facility, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
27 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 247
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 248
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-66-21-2:
A portion of land being situated within the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of
Section 14, Township 5 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian,
Maricopa County, Arizona, being more particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found 3” brass cap flush accepted as the south quarter corner of
said Section 14 from which a found ½” rebar with cap RLS 21081 accepted as the
Center of said Section 14 bears North 00°21'59" West, 2645.55 feet;
Thence North 89°38'30" East, 1009.71 feet along the south line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section 14 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence leaving said south line, North 02°49'52" West, 107.92 feet; Thence North
17°58'44" West, 106.34 feet;
Thence North 16°04'14" West, 135.75 feet;
Thence North 24°53'59" West, 66.65 feet;
Thence North 27°12'27" West, 151.95 feet;
Thence North 26°41'39" West, 229.20 feet;
Thence North 42°42'39" West, 234.22 feet;
Thence North 29°09'05" West, 213.01 feet;
Thence North 25°19'17" West, 175.08 feet;
Thence North 27°20'59" West, 70.84 feet to the north line of the Southwest quarter of
the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
Thence along said north line, North 89°35'43" East, 947.89 feet to the northeast corner
of the Southwest quarter of said Southeast quarter;
Thence South 00°22'06" East, 1323.84 feet along the east line of the Southwest quarter
of said Southeast quarter to the south line of said Section 14;
Thence South 89°38'30" West, 310.10 feet along said south line to the POINT OF
BEGINNING.
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 769,058 sq. ft. (17.655 acres)
more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of record or
otherwise.
Page 249
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 250
Page 251
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-65-21-3 -
Southwest corner of 17th Street and Bell Road (Ordinance G-6953)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-O (Residential Office) to C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) for a karate studio.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-O
Proposed Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 1.08 acres
Proposed Use: Karate Studio
Owner: A&M Truck and Trailer Repair, LLC
Applicant: Octavian Belostecinic
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec.
6, 2021 and recommended approval, with a modification to a stipulation, by a vote of
12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 17th Street and Bell Road.
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 1675 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 252
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-65-21-3) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) TO C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL)
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.08-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 17th Street and Bell Road, in a portion of Section 3, Township 3 North, and
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “R-
O” (Residential Office) to “C-1” (Neighborhood Retail).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. No vehicular access shall be provided along 17th Street, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 253
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide attached sidewalk along
Bell Road and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
3. The required landscape setback along the south property boundary shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. A clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathway shall be provided to connect
building entrances, bus stop pads, and public sidewalks, to 17th Street using
the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. The development shall be in general conformance with the building elevations
date stamped September 29, 2021, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
7. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the south side of Bell Road, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
Page 254
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
10. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to final site plan approval, as per plans approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
12. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
13. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 255
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 256
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-65-21-3
A RE-PLAT OF LOTS 20, 21 AND 22 OF “NORTHERN HILLS AMENDED”,
RECORDED IN BOOK 61 OF MAPS PAGE 17, M.C.R., LOCATED IN A PORTION OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST OF GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.
Page 257
Page 258
Report
Southwest corner of 17th Street and Bell Road (Ordinance G-6953)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R-O (Residential Office) to C-1 (Neighborhood Retail) for a karate studio.
Summary
Current Zoning: R-O
Proposed Zoning: C-1
Acreage: 1.08 acres
Proposed Use: Karate Studio
Owner: A&M Truck and Trailer Repair, LLC
Applicant: Octavian Belostecinic
Representative: Taylor Earl, Earl & Curley
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec.
6, 2021 and recommended approval, with a modification to a stipulation, by a vote of
12-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Southwest corner of 17th Street and Bell Road.
Council District: 3
Parcel Addresses: 1675 E. Bell Road
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 252
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-65-21-3) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE) TO C-1
(NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL)
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.08-acre site located at the southwest
corner of 17th Street and Bell Road, in a portion of Section 3, Township 3 North, and
Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “R-
O” (Residential Office) to “C-1” (Neighborhood Retail).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. No vehicular access shall be provided along 17th Street, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 253
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide attached sidewalk along
Bell Road and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
3. The required landscape setback along the south property boundary shall be
planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. A clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathway shall be provided to connect
building entrances, bus stop pads, and public sidewalks, to 17th Street using
the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. The development shall be in general conformance with the building elevations
date stamped September 29, 2021, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic racks shall
adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
7. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the south side of Bell Road, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
Page 254
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
10. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to final site plan approval, as per plans approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Deer Valley Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to
the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and
approved by the City Attorney.
12. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
13. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 255
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 256
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-65-21-3
A RE-PLAT OF LOTS 20, 21 AND 22 OF “NORTHERN HILLS AMENDED”,
RECORDED IN BOOK 61 OF MAPS PAGE 17, M.C.R., LOCATED IN A PORTION OF
THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 3, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 3
EAST OF GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY,
ARIZONA.
Page 257
Page 258
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
***REQUEST TO CONTINUE (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Amend City Code -
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-47-21-4 - Approximately 400 Feet
Northwest of the Northwest Corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand Avenue
(Ordinance G-6952)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-3 (General Commercial District) to C-3 DNS/WVR (General Commercial District,
Density Waiver) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-3
Proposed Zoning: C-3 DNS/WVR
Acreage: 4.88 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: P WEST PROPERTIES XX, LLC
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 28,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: This case was continued by the Planning Commission on Oct. 7, 2021,
Nov. 4, 2021, and Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6,
2022 and recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 400 feet northwest of the northwest corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand
Avenue.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 3400 Grand Ave.
Page 259
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 260
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-47-21-4) FROM C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO
C-3 DNS/WVR (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, DENSITY
WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.88-acre site located approximately 400 feet
northwest of the northwest corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand Avenue, in a portion of
Section 26, Township 2 North and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-3” (General Commercial District) to “C-3
DNS/WVR” (General Commercial District with a density waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
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 261
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall utilize the standards contained in the R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) zoning district development standard, except as modified
by the below stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. A minimum of 6 percent of the gross project area shall be retained as open
space and be shaded to a minimum 50 percent by minimum 2-inch caliper
large canopy shade trees and architectural shade such as ramadas that shall
account for no more than 25 percent of the required shade area, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The developer shall replenish the existing landscape planters adjacent to
Grand Avenue per the C-3 streetscape landscape standards for planting type,
size and quantity contained in Chapter 624.E.4.e of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, unless underground utilities and/or drainage are found to conflict,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian environment.
4. The developer shall incorporate and maintain bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Secure bicycle parking for residents at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling
unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces.
b. Inverted-U style bicycle racks with capacity for a minimum of 10 bicycles
for guests shall be distributed throughout the site near the primary
pedestrian entrance(s) or amenity area.
c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high
visibility such as near a central amenity area. The repair station shall
include: standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump
affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand
which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments
to the bike.
5. The developer shall provide a system of internal, clearly defined pedestrian
pathways including the following elements, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Connect all building entrances, exits, and amenity areas, to all public
sidewalks, by a direct route.
Page 262
b. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive-aisles, the crossing shall
visually contrast with parking and drive aisle surfaces.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. All right-of-way improvements and access control shall be reviewed, permitted
and approved by ADOT.
8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
9. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
10. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. 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.
12. The developer shall provide a “tot lot” as an amenity in a centrally located open
space, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 263
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 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeff Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 264
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-47-21-4
That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township
2 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian described as
follows;
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter
of Section 26.
Thence west along the north line thereof 175 feet;
Thence South 0 degrees 20 minutes West, parallel with the East line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26. a distance of 183.00 feet to the True
Point of Beginning;
Thence West parallel with the North Line thereof a distance of 152.00 feet to the
southwest corner of the North 183 feet of the East 327 of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 26.
Thence South 45 degrees 18 minutes West a distance of 86.60 feet; Thence South 0
degrees 20 Minutes West a distance of 198.69 feet;
Thence South 45 degrees 18 Minutes West 309.77 feet to a point on the
Northeasterly right of way line of Grand Avenue (said right of way line being 40
feet Northeasterly of the centerline of Grand Avenue as measures at right angles)
Thence South 44 degrees 42 Minutes East along the Northeasterly right of way of
Grand Avenue, a distance of 400.26 feet;
Thence North 45 degrees 18 Minutes East 186.70 feet to a point on the South
line of the North 825.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter
of Section 26.
Thence East along said South line 145.81 feet to a point on the West Line
of the East 33.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of section
26. Thence North 0 degrees 30 Minutes East along said west line 32.00 feet;
Thence West parallel to the North line of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest of Section 26, a distance of 142.00 feet to the Southwest corner
of the North 793.00 feet of the East 175.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 26;
Thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes East parallel to the East line of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, a distance of 610.01
feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Page 265
Page 266
Report
Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-47-21-4 - Approximately 400 Feet
Northwest of the Northwest Corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand Avenue
(Ordinance G-6952)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-3 (General Commercial District) to C-3 DNS/WVR (General Commercial District,
Density Waiver) to allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-3
Proposed Zoning: C-3 DNS/WVR
Acreage: 4.88 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: P WEST PROPERTIES XX, LLC
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Alhambra Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 28,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation by a vote of 12-0.
PC Action: This case was continued by the Planning Commission on Oct. 7, 2021,
Nov. 4, 2021, and Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6,
2022 and recommended approval, per the Alhambra Village Planning Committee
recommendation, with an additional stipulation by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 400 feet northwest of the northwest corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand
Avenue.
Council District: 4
Parcel Address: 3400 Grand Ave.
Page 259
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 260
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(Z-47-21-4) FROM C-3 (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO
C-3 DNS/WVR (GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, DENSITY
WAIVER).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 4.88-acre site located approximately 400 feet
northwest of the northwest corner of 33rd Avenue and Grand Avenue, in a portion of
Section 26, Township 2 North and Range 2 East, as described more specifically in
Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from “C-3” (General Commercial District) to “C-3
DNS/WVR” (General Commercial District with a density waiver).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
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 261
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall utilize the standards contained in the R-5 (Multifamily
Residence District) zoning district development standard, except as modified
by the below stipulations and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
2. A minimum of 6 percent of the gross project area shall be retained as open
space and be shaded to a minimum 50 percent by minimum 2-inch caliper
large canopy shade trees and architectural shade such as ramadas that shall
account for no more than 25 percent of the required shade area, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The developer shall replenish the existing landscape planters adjacent to
Grand Avenue per the C-3 streetscape landscape standards for planting type,
size and quantity contained in Chapter 624.E.4.e of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, unless underground utilities and/or drainage are found to conflict,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Where utility
conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and Development
Department on alternative design solutions consistent with the creation of a
comfortable pedestrian environment.
4. The developer shall incorporate and maintain bicycle infrastructure as
described below and as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Secure bicycle parking for residents at a rate of 0.25 spaces per dwelling
unit, up to a maximum of 50 spaces.
b. Inverted-U style bicycle racks with capacity for a minimum of 10 bicycles
for guests shall be distributed throughout the site near the primary
pedestrian entrance(s) or amenity area.
c. A bicycle repair station (“fix it station”) shall be provided in an area of high
visibility such as near a central amenity area. The repair station shall
include: standard repair tools affixed to the station, a tire gauge and pump
affixed to the base of the station or the ground, and a bicycle repair stand
which allows pedals and wheels to spin freely while making adjustments
to the bike.
5. The developer shall provide a system of internal, clearly defined pedestrian
pathways including the following elements, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Connect all building entrances, exits, and amenity areas, to all public
sidewalks, by a direct route.
Page 262
b. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive-aisles, the crossing shall
visually contrast with parking and drive aisle surfaces.
6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
7. All right-of-way improvements and access control shall be reviewed, permitted
and approved by ADOT.
8. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
9. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
10. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. 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.
12. The developer shall provide a “tot lot” as an amenity in a centrally located open
space, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
13. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 263
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 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeff Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 264
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-47-21-4
That portion of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, Township
2 North, Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian described as
follows;
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter
of Section 26.
Thence west along the north line thereof 175 feet;
Thence South 0 degrees 20 minutes West, parallel with the East line of the Northwest
Quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26. a distance of 183.00 feet to the True
Point of Beginning;
Thence West parallel with the North Line thereof a distance of 152.00 feet to the
southwest corner of the North 183 feet of the East 327 of the Northwest Quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 26.
Thence South 45 degrees 18 minutes West a distance of 86.60 feet; Thence South 0
degrees 20 Minutes West a distance of 198.69 feet;
Thence South 45 degrees 18 Minutes West 309.77 feet to a point on the
Northeasterly right of way line of Grand Avenue (said right of way line being 40
feet Northeasterly of the centerline of Grand Avenue as measures at right angles)
Thence South 44 degrees 42 Minutes East along the Northeasterly right of way of
Grand Avenue, a distance of 400.26 feet;
Thence North 45 degrees 18 Minutes East 186.70 feet to a point on the South
line of the North 825.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter
of Section 26.
Thence East along said South line 145.81 feet to a point on the West Line
of the East 33.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of section
26. Thence North 0 degrees 30 Minutes East along said west line 32.00 feet;
Thence West parallel to the North line of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest of Section 26, a distance of 142.00 feet to the Southwest corner
of the North 793.00 feet of the East 175.00 feet of the Northwest quarter of the
Northwest quarter of Section 26;
Thence North 0 degrees 20 minutes East parallel to the East line of the
Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 26, a distance of 610.01
feet to the True Point of Beginning;
Page 265
Page 266
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-61-21-6 -
Approximately 150 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 44th Street and Earll
Drive (Ordinance G-6955)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office - Restricted
Commercial District) to allow a residential office.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-10
Proposed Zoning: R-O
Acreage: 1.15 acres
Proposal: Residential office
Owner: 1024 Investments, LLC and Hen Consulting
Applicant: Brendan Morrow
Representative: Rodney Q. Jarvis, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: This case was continued by the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee on Nov. 2, 2021. The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard
this case on Dec. 7, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation,
by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 150 feet north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 3121 and 3125 N. 44th St.
Page 267
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 268
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-61-21-6) FROM R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.15-acre site located approximately 150 feet
north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive in a portion of Section 30,
Township 2 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby
changed from “R1-10” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-O” (Residential Office –
Restricted Commercial District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 269
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 1 story and 15 feet.
b. The development shall be at a scale and intensity that reflects adjacent
residential uses and incorporates architectural features and detailing that
are consistent and compatible with existing residential uses in the
surrounding area.
2. There shall be a minimum 20-foot landscape setback along 44th Street for both
properties.
3. The required landscape setback along 44th Street shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall
be minimum four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum
three-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The public sidewalk along 44th Street shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees that provide a minimum 75 percent
shade at maturity. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work
with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve minimum 75 percent live coverage.
5. The required landscape setback along the northern property line of the northern
parcel shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. A minimum 5-foot landscape setback shall be required along the eastern
property line. This setback shall be planted with minimum 8-foot-tall shrubs or
plants to provide a tall vegetative buffer from adjacent single-family residences
to the east, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 270
7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department. Shade may be provided
with a combination of trees and structural shade.
8. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
9. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances for each of the existing
buildings. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
10. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the east side of 44th Street, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape area located between the back of curb and
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The developer shall record a cross-access agreement for any shared access
drives along 44th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. There shall be a maximum of one driveway along 44th Street.
16. 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.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 271
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 272
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 273
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-61-21-6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 29
THE SOUTH 70 FEET OF LOT 29 AND THE NORTH 60 FEET OF LOT 30, OF
SUNBEAM UNIT NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN
BOOK 42 OF MAPS, PAGE 33.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 28
LOT 28 AND THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 29, SUNBEAM UNIT NO. 2,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF
MAPS, PAGE 33.
Page 274
Page 275
Report
Approximately 150 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 44th Street and Earll
Drive (Ordinance G-6955)
Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to R-O (Residential Office - Restricted
Commercial District) to allow a residential office.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-10
Proposed Zoning: R-O
Acreage: 1.15 acres
Proposal: Residential office
Owner: 1024 Investments, LLC and Hen Consulting
Applicant: Brendan Morrow
Representative: Rodney Q. Jarvis, Earl & Curley, P.C.
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: This case was continued by the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee on Nov. 2, 2021. The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard
this case on Dec. 7, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation,
by a vote of 14-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
Location
Approximately 150 feet north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 3121 and 3125 N. 44th St.
Page 267
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 268
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-61-21-6) FROM R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE – RESTRICTED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.15-acre site located approximately 150 feet
north of the northeast corner of 44th Street and Earll Drive in a portion of Section 30,
Township 2 North, Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby
changed from “R1-10” (Single-Family Residence District) to “R-O” (Residential Office –
Restricted Commercial District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 269
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
elevations date stamped September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 1 story and 15 feet.
b. The development shall be at a scale and intensity that reflects adjacent
residential uses and incorporates architectural features and detailing that
are consistent and compatible with existing residential uses in the
surrounding area.
2. There shall be a minimum 20-foot landscape setback along 44th Street for both
properties.
3. The required landscape setback along 44th Street shall include large canopy
shade trees 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Twenty-five percent of the trees shall
be minimum four-inch caliper and 75 percent of the trees shall be minimum
three-inch caliper. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. The public sidewalk along 44th Street shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees that provide a minimum 75 percent
shade at maturity. Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work
with the Planning and Development Department on alternative design
solutions consistent with a pedestrian environment.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation maintained at a maximum mature height of 24
inches and achieve minimum 75 percent live coverage.
5. The required landscape setback along the northern property line of the northern
parcel shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20 feet
on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
6. A minimum 5-foot landscape setback shall be required along the eastern
property line. This setback shall be planted with minimum 8-foot-tall shrubs or
plants to provide a tall vegetative buffer from adjacent single-family residences
to the east, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 270
7. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department. Shade may be provided
with a combination of trees and structural shade.
8. There shall be no internally lit signs on the site. Signage shall be approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
9. A minimum of four bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located near building entrances for each of the existing
buildings. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
10. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. The developer shall dedicate a minimum 10-foot-wide sidewalk easement and
construct the east side of 44th Street, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
13. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide detached sidewalk and a
minimum 5-foot-wide landscape area located between the back of curb and
sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The developer shall record a cross-access agreement for any shared access
drives along 44th Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. There shall be a maximum of one driveway along 44th Street.
16. 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.
17. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 271
18. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 272
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 273
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-61-21-6
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 2
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN,
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 29
THE SOUTH 70 FEET OF LOT 29 AND THE NORTH 60 FEET OF LOT 30, OF
SUNBEAM UNIT NO. 2, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE
OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN
BOOK 42 OF MAPS, PAGE 33.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION – LOT 28
LOT 28 AND THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOT 29, SUNBEAM UNIT NO. 2,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF RECORD IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, RECORDED IN BOOK 42 OF
MAPS, PAGE 33.
Page 274
Page 275
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing - Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Walkable Urban Code
Expansion and Fee Schedule Update - Z-TA-3-19 (Ordinance G-6962)
Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-3-19 and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the
Walkable Urban Code boundaries and amends the Zoning Fee Schedule.
Summary
Application: Z-TA-3-19
Proposal: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative Bodies), Chapter 5
(Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable Urban Code) of the
Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide, including updates to
clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and procedure, and
updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend the Zoning Fee
Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19, per the Addendum
B Staff Report (Attachment G).
VPC Action: The request was heard by all 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs).
Four VPCs recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report; two VPCs
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modification; and
nine VPCs recommended denial, as reflected in Attachments D and F.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report, by a vote of 8-0, as
reflected in the Planning Commission Summary (Attachment H).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 276
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 3 (DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES), CHAPTER 5 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES)
AND CHAPTER 13 (WALKABLE URBAN CODE) OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE WU CODE BOUNDARIES
CITYWIDE, INCLUDING UPDATES TO CLARIFY RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS, CLARIFICATION OF WU CODE PROCESS AND
PROCEDURE, AND UPDATING GENERAL LOT STANDARDS
RELEVANT TO THE EXPANSION; AND AMEND THE ZONING
FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE FEES FOR WU CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS, DOWNTOWN CODE-CHARACTER AREAS, AND
UPDATE FEES FOR NEW PROCESSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 3, Section 309.A (Design Review Committee)
is amended to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
-1- Ordinance ________
Page 277
SECTION 2. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and
Sustainability Bonus Appeals), is amended to read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
SECTION 3. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G.1.c, is amended to read as
follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
SECTION 4. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G.4.c, is amended to read as
follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
SECTION 5. That Chapter 13, Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent), is
amended to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
-2- Ordinance ________
Page 278
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
SECTION 6. That Chapter 13, Section 1301.C (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
-3- Ordinance ________
Page 279
-4- Ordinance ________
Page 280
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
-5- Ordinance ________
Page 281
SECTION 7. That Chapter 13, Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards), is
amended to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
-6- Ordinance ________
Page 282
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
SECTION 8. That Chapter 13, Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade), is
amended to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
SECTION 9. That Chapter 13, Section 1305.A (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
-7- Ordinance ________
Page 283
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
SECTION 10. That Chapter 13, Section 1306.A (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
SECTION 11. That Chapter 13, Section 1306.H.1.b, is amended to read
as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the
Transit District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano.
***
SECTION 12. That Chapter 13, Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines),
is amended to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
-8- Ordinance ________
Page 284
SECTION 13. That Chapter 13, Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space
Type Guidelines), is amended to read as follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
SECTION 14. That Chapter 13, Section 1311.A.1 (General
Considerations), is amended to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit
services, TRANSIT ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS:
***
SECTION 15. That Chapter 13, Section 1313.D.3.a, is amended to
remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
-9- Ordinance ________
Page 285
***
SECTION 16. That Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) is amended to
read as follows and renumbered accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
-10- Ordinance ________
Page 286
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February, 2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
-11- Ordinance ________
Page 287
Attachment B
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections
507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to
expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE EXPANSION
Purpose/Background: On July 31, 2015, the Phoenix City Council approved Text
Amendment No. Z-TA-8-09 and adopted the related Ordinance No. G-6047, which
amended Sections 202, 309, and 507, and created Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Walkable Urban Code (WU Code).
On June 6, 2019, the Phoenix Planning Commission initiated a text amendment to
amend Chapter 13 to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide; amend the Zoning Fee
Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Areas and update fees for new processes; and to address minimum acreage limitations
on charter schools to comply with limitations allowed by ARS 15-189.01. This text
amendment does not include amendments regarding the minimum acreage limitations
on charter schools. Proposed amendments regarding charter school regulations may be
addressed in a future text amendment.
Currently, the WU Code may be applied and is limited to land uses, subdivisions, and
development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano districts. The purpose of this
text amendment is to remove geographic restrictions on applicability and allow the WU
Code to be applied to properties citywide. Removing these restrictions will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within future Transit Oriented District
(TOD) Policy Plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
WU Code zoning districts subject to all relevant processes and procedures applicable to
such applications.
Expanding the boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code also supports the goals of the
Housing Phoenix Plan adopted by the Phoenix City Council in June 2020. The Plan
Page 288
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
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 Plan has a goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and proposes policy initiatives to achieve this goal, including amending the current
Zoning Ordinance to facilitate more housing options.
The WU Code is a form-based code that prioritizes the development of pedestrian
oriented environments, promotes diverse housing options, and does not contain limits
on dwelling unit density. The WU Code promotes walkable, shaded, human-scale,
transit-oriented development that is uniquely suited for transit districts and other urban
areas targeted for higher intensity development. Expanding the boundaries of the WU
Code will allow for consideration of proposed developments utilizing the Code outside of
the current approved TOD Districts.
This text amendment also prevents the need for future text amendments to continue
adding references to newly approved Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans as
these plans are individually adopted or approved. Finally, this proposal will eliminate
the need for the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to
implement Walkable Urban Code standards for properties outside the boundaries of the
current approved TOD Districts.
This text amendment also includes revisions to development standards and design
guidelines, including general lot standards, frontages, building and shade, open space,
and public space type, which are intended to correct existing issues related to
subdivisions and existing limitations and requirements for single-family attached (SFA)
development which are relevant to the expansion of WU Code applicability citywide.
Applicants requesting a change to WU Code zoning must follow the rezoning process
per Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance. This text amendment will not rezone any
property to WU Code zoning and will not modify any aspect of the current rezoning
process.
The following provides a summary of the proposed changes:
• Geographic Restrictions on the Applicability of the WU Code
Sections 309.A, 507.G, 1301.C, and 1305 are revised to remove references to
geographic restrictions on the applicability of the WU Code and/or references to
the current ‘boundaries’ of the WU Code. The current language restricts
applications for WU Code zoning to properties depicted on the boundary maps of
the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Transit Oriented
District (TOD) Policy Plans. The intent behind removing geographic restrictions
Page 289
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
and references to ‘boundaries’ is to allow for the WU Code to be applied citywide
through the rezoning process.
• Policy Plan References Relevant to WU Code Rezoning Requests
Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, 507.G.4.c, and 1301.B are revised to clarify the
relevant policy plans that the WU Code is intended to implement, clarify relevant
policy plans that should be considered when evaluating requests for rezoning to
WU Code zoning, and provide the Design Review Committee (DRC) clear review
criteria regarding applications for Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus
Appeals for properties with WU Code zoning.
These revisions include removing references to the five currently approved TOD
Policy Plan Character Areas (Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano) and replacing these with a reference to transit-oriented policy plans
generally. This proposal has no impact on the applicability or any considerations
regarding these existing TOD Policy Plans. The intent is to allow flexibility for
consideration of policy plans for future TOD Districts as they are adopted without
necessitating additional text amendments. Additionally, this will allow the
consideration of other transit-oriented policy plans in evaluating requests for WU
Code zoning districts including, but not limited to, the Transit-Oriented
Development Strategic Policy Framework.
Further, the proposed expansion of the WU Code as a zoning district for
properties citywide necessitates that additional review criteria be identified
regarding relevant policy plans for properties in non-TOD districts. Proposed
revisions in Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c clarify that other relevant
policy plans should be considered when the DRC is considering requests for
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. Relevant policy plans
may include citywide plans such as the recently adopted Housing Phoenix Plan
or the 2015 Phoenix General Plan, or Village, community, or neighborhood
specific plans such as Village core plans, Village character plans, Special
Planning Districts, neighborhood conservation plans, and many others.
These revisions will allow greater flexibility in determining appropriate review
criteria for WU Code rezoning requests on a property-by-property basis. This
result is further expressed in the proposed revision to Section 1301.B which
modifies the purpose and intent of the WU Code generally to apply to a wider
range of development scenarios. These revisions include removing the
distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ purposes of the Code, which
currently prioritizes the TOD Policy Plan’s visions and policies above
neighborhood improvements such as pedestrian safety and public health. The
proposed revisions clearly establish the equal weight of all these goals in
evaluating such requests. Additionally, the proposal removes a reference to
specific Light Rail corridors and replaces it with a reference to transit corridors
Page 290
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
generally which will allow the Code to remain relevant as new extensions are
activated. However, this will also allow communities that do not contain light rail
corridors, but may contain key transit corridors such as future bus-rapid transit
lines, to help evaluate requests for WU Code zoning and whether they represent
an appropriate mixture and density of activity.
• WU Code Process and Procedure Clarification
Sections 1301.C and 1306.A are revised to include minor administrative
adjustments that clarify processes and procedures within the WU Code. These
include revisions to 1301.C.1 to clarify that WU Code Transect Districts are
zoning districts that may be applied for through the conventional rezoning
process, 1301.C.2.a to address conflicts between Chapter 8 (Historic
Preservation) and Chapter 13 (WU Code), 1301.C.2.b to clarify conflicts with the
remainder of the Zoning Ordinance and 1301.C.3 to address conflicts within the
WU Code, and 1306.A to clarify applicability of the Land Use Matrix. These
revisions are not intended to modify any existing Code requirements but rather to
clarify the original intent of the Code and the appropriate hierarchies of authority
for plan and project review.
• WU Code General Lot Standards Relevant to Expansion of WU Code
Section 1303.A is revised to address general lot standards relevant to the
expansion of WU Code applicability. Revisions include the following:
Section 1303.A.1 includes new language that conclusively establishes that
new lots created by subdividing properties within WU Code transect
districts shall comply with frontage standards on new public and private
street frontages, not just existing perimeter frontages. Except that Section
1303.A.1.a is proposed to allow an exception for SFA development.
Section 1303.A.1.a includes a correction regarding an existing reference
to a graphic describing building setback and stepbacks which is in Section
614, and not Section 615. This section also includes revisions that clarify
that the SFA development option is available for properties that meet three
conditions:
1) Section 1303.A.1.a.(1) requires that the development consist solely
of attached dwelling units and permitted accessory uses. This
condition is required because the WU Code permits a wider variety
of land uses than the conventional multifamily residential zoning
districts that the SFA development option is currently permitted in.
Without this clarification, it would appear that an SFA development
may be permitted that integrates commercial or other mixed-uses.
Page 291
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
2) Section 1303.A.1.a.(2) requires that the subject property be located
in the Applicable Area for the Single-Family Attached Development
Option or the Infill Development District as depicted on the existing
map provided in Section 608.F.8. This condition is required to
ensure that the SFA development option is not utilized on
properties with WU Code transects outside of the existing areas for
which the SFA development option is currently approved. These
areas are identified on the map referenced in the proposed
language.
3) Section 1303.A.1.a.(3) requires that the development be located in
any WU Code transect other than T3. This is an existing condition
in 1303.A.1 that is proposed to move to this new section. This
existing condition is required because the T3 transect is intended to
provide for a low-intensity residential fabric characterized primarily
by detached single-family homes and duplexes in relatively
large lots with deep setbacks. The SFA development option is not
appropriate for the intended character of the T3 transect.
Section 1303.A.1.b includes a revision that clarifies the role of the
Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Committee in regard to SFA
development for WU Code properties. Specifically, that WU Code
properties are subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
and that the Subdivision Committee shall consider the stated goals of the
WU Code in evaluating modifications.
Section 1303.A.2 includes revisions that address all WU Code
development adjacent to property with a single-family zoning district and
establishes a requirement that these shared property lines should be
developed using SFA building setback and stepback standards. This
corrects an error regarding an Ordinance reference to the single-family
development option and revises existing Ordinance language to apply
these standards to all developments. Revisions also include three
additional requirements regarding SFA development:
1) Section 1303.A.2.a retains the original language of 1303.A.2.b
which addresses stepback provisions.
2) Section 1303.A.2.b clarifies and relocates original language from
1303.A.2 and 1303.A.2.a which address a minimum ten-foot
landscape setback for all development abutting historic
preservation designated properties or districts. This clarification is
required as the original language only addressed development in
the T4, T5, and T6 transects, whereas the revised language
addresses all transects as described above.
Page 292
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
3) Section 1303.A.2.c establishes a new provision stating that no
stepback provisions or landscape setbacks are required where a
development abuts a permanent open space at least 40 feet in
depth, such as a wash, preserve, park, existing golf course, or
dedicated open space. This provision is intended to provide
consistency with the existing provision applied to conventional
residential zoning districts in Section 608.I.3.
Section 1303.A.6 includes multiple revisions to add private accessways
and private driveways to a list regarding locations where frontage
standards apply. This is consistent with the existing Section 202
definitions of Building Frontage and Frontage which addresses private
accessways. This standard will not apply along internal driveways which
do not abut lot lines which is consistent with current Ordinance language.
Section 1304.F.2 includes a revision requiring that developments provide shading along
their entire frontage and not along what is currently referred to as “right-of-way
frontage”. The existing language is unclear and the revision also provides consistency
with the proposed revision to Section 1303.A.6 as described above.
Section 1310 is revised to address open space standards relevant to the expansion of
WU Code applicability. Revisions include the following:
Section 1310.A.1 includes a correction to specify that T3 parcels are
exempt from required ‘public open space improvements’ and not ‘public
space improvements’. Note that as this text amendment does not permit
SFA development in the T3 district, there is no need to require open space
per that development option.
Section 1310.A.2 includes a correction to clarify that the open space
requirements in this section apply to all developments within the T4, T5,
and T6 transects. The original language exempted residential land uses
from these requirements. There is no other Ordinance section with
comparable standards that apply to residential land uses in these WU
Code transects and this corrects the problem.
Section 1310.A.2.a includes a revision that requires SFA developments to
provide open space as required by Section 614, Table B, Column D,
regardless of lot size. In the existing language, it is unclear if the WU
Code overrides SFA standards, which would otherwise require open
space regardless of lot size.
Section 1310, Table 1310.1 contains two minor revisions to provide consistency with the
proposed modifications in Section 1310 as described above.
Page 293
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
ZONING FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Purpose/Background: On July 31, 2015, the Phoenix City Council approved TA-8-09
and adopted Ordinance No. G-6047, which amended Sections 202, 309, and 507, and
created Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the WU Code. Planning and
Development Department staff in the Zoning section subsequently established
administrative fees for rezoning requests to the various transect districts in the WU
Code. The fees that were established were determined to provide consistency with the
Zoning Ordinance’s existing fees for comparable conventional zoning districts. The
purpose of this text amendment is to insert the WU Code rezoning fees into the Zoning
Fee Schedule in the Zoning Ordinance.
The following provides a summary of the proposed changes:
Appendix A, Fee Schedule – A new Section A.1.7 is proposed to add fees relevant to
rezoning requests to WU Code transect districts.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Exhibit A.
Writer
A. Stranieri
July 12, 2021
Exhibit
A. Proposed Language (7 Pages)
Page 294
EXHIBIT A
Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Boundary Expansion and Fee Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
Page 295
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
Page 296
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Page 297
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
Page 298
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Page 299
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Page 300
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
Page 301
Attachment C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
(Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule Update)
September 28, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative
Bodies), Chapter 5 (Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable
Urban Code) of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide,
including updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and
procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend
the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown
Code-Character Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
The purpose of this Addendum is to address minor revisions to the recommended text
in Exhibit A. Below is a summary of the proposed revisions to the text amendment
which are also denoted as underlined text in Exhibit A dated September 28, 2021.
1. Section 1301.C.2.b
New language is proposed to clarify that the WU Code does not eliminate any
overlay zoning district, redevelopment area, special planning district, or specific
plan. These zoning districts and plans may contain defined geographic
boundaries within which properties are subject to regulatory standards or
guidelines. The proposed language is intended to clarify and confirm that
rezoning a property to a WU Code Transect District does not eliminate any
regulatory requirement to comply with these zoning districts and plans.
To remove such a regulatory requirement, a property owner would be required to
follow all processes relevant to modifying that zoning district or plan. These
processes may include, but are not limited to, a text amendment to the
geographic applicability in the case of an overlay zoning district or a General
Plan Amendment in the case of a specific plan.
However, it should be noted that the creation of the WU Code was intended to
replace the Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay Districts One and Two
(TOD-1 and TOD-2). If a property owner applies to rezone a property designated
with TOD-1 or TOD-2 overlay zoning to a WU Code Transect District, a staff
recommendation of approval will include removal of the TOD-1 or TOD-2 overlay
zoning designation.
Page 302
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
The new language also clarifies that in the event of a conflict between the WU
Code and any overlay zoning district, redevelopment area, special planning
district, or specific plan, the requirements of these overlay districts and plans
shall apply. Due to the inclusion of this new language, the original proposed
language in Section 1301.C.2.b is proposed to shift to the new Section
1301.C.2.c.
Finally, this new language is also intended to eliminate potential perceived
conflicts between the proposed language in Section 1301.C.2.c which states that
if a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the remainder of
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. The proposed language in Section 1301.C.2.c is intended to apply to
circumstances where a WU Code standard or guideline differs from a similar
standard or guideline elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. For example, the WU
Code has unique design guidelines that would prevail in the event of a conflict
with a related design guideline in Section 507, Tab A, Guidelines for Design
Review. However, as stated above this hierarchy does not apply to properties
with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning, overlay zoning districts, redevelopment
areas, special planning districts, or specific plans.
2. Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) – Section A.1.21
New language is proposed to add a $135.00 fee for administrative temporary use
permits (ATUP). An ATUP is required for uses including, but not limited to,
community or other special events on commercial properties, interim surface
parking, and temporary construction yards or staging areas. On July 6, 2011, the
Phoenix City Council approved Text Amendment Case No. Z-TA-2-08 and
adopted the related Ordinance No. G-5644 which modified regulations regarding
temporary permits and created the term “Administrative Temporary Use Permit”.
At that time, the term and related fee was not added to the Zoning Fee Schedule.
The $135.00 fee has been utilized since 2011 and no change is proposed to the
fee.
Correspondence: Also included in this Addendum as Exhibit B is one piece of
correspondence received by staff since the approval of the original staff report.
Senate Bill 1409: On May 11, 2021, the Arizona Governor approved Senate Bill 1409,
amending Section 9-462.01, relating to municipal zoning. This Bill requires the
legislative body of a municipality to consider the probable impact of any text amendment
on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent before adoption.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.01(J), staff has evaluated the probable impact of this zoning
text amendment on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent. Staff has found no
evidence that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment will have any probable
and measurable impact on the construction costs of housing for sale or rent in Phoenix.
Page 303
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Proposed Language (8 pages)
Exhibit B: Correspondence (12 Pages)
Page 304
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule
Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Page 305
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
Page 306
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page 307
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
Page 308
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Page 309
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Page 310
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
Page 311
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
Page 312
EXHIBIT B
Adam Stranieri
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Estrella VPC
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:37 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in Estrella VPC
Good morning Enrique,
Sending this over with the hopes to include as public written comment for Estrella Village Planning Committee.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow
residents to live, enjoy community amenities and work in one place. Further, this advances many Estrella Village
Character Plan goals including:
1. "Communities should consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and recreational options
for residents."
2. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open space, shaded walkways,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised
structures or underground where feasible."
3. "Design and locate new neighborhoods to promote access (both physical and visual) to parks and open space.
New developments should also provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, schools and
other neighborhood amenities."
4. "Lack of retail and restaurant options. As development activity increases throughout Estrella, the Village has a
growing need for more quality restaurants, retail and commercial services to serve its diverse and expanding
population."
5. "Lack of community amenities. The Estrella Village lacks quality public parks, bicycle lanes, and connectivity of
multi‐use trails and pathways. As residential development activity increases, it will be increasingly important to
provide these amenities for an expanding population. The Estrella Community should promote restoration of
access to amenities such as Tres Rios Wetlands."
6. "Diversifying the housing stock. Residential development in the Estrella Village is predominantly single‐family
detached units on smaller lots in the R1‐6 and R1‐8 zoning districts. There is a lack of diversity in the housing
stock and a particular lack of larger‐lot residential properties and multifamily options."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
Page 313
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase our housing supply and catch up with other
cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
‐‐
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 314
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Ahwatukee Foothills VPC
Date: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:45:07 PM
Good morning Enrique,
Just writing this to submit as written comments for tonight's Ahwatukee Foothills Village
Planning Committee if possible!
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. Beyond this, the WU Code expansion will address several
goals in the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Character Plan including:
1. "Design and locate new neighborhoods to promote access (both physical and visual) to
parks and open space. New developments should also provide convenient pedestrian and
bicycle access to transit stops, schools and other neighborhood amenities."
2. "Enhance Community Amenities. The Village must continue to promote enhancements
to its parks and recreational infrastructure. Public streetscapes throughout the Village
lack amenities that would make streets more appealing and promote walkability."
3. "Improve Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Many major arterials such as 48th Street,
Warner Road, Ray Road, Chandler Road and streets within the Village Core lack safe
infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code.
Page 315
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 316
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Written Public Comments in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Alhambra VPC
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 8:01:37 AM
Good morning Nick,
Just writing to submit these public comments in support of Z-TA-3-19 in the Alhambra
Village Planning Committee.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. You in Alhambra are especially cognizant of these dynamics
with your Transit-Oriented Development plans. I'd also like to note this accomplishes goals in
the Alhambra Village Character Plan such as:
1. "Locate neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods."
2. "Encourage land uses that promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new businesses in
Phoenix in appropriate locations."
3. "Promote and encourage compatible infill development with a mix of housing types in
neighborhoods close to employment centers, commercial areas and where transit or
transportation alternatives exist."
4. "Develop land use and design regulations governing land close to transit centers and
light rail stations to maximize the potential for ridership."
5. "Integrate tree and shade into the design of new development and redevelopment
projects throughout Phoenix."
6. "Plan and design communities and neighborhoods to be pedestrian friendly and
walkable."
7. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking
and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures or underground where
feasible."
8. "Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more pedestrian environment, when
adequate shielding from noise and light can be provided to adjacent established
neighborhoods. On-street parking in some areas may also promote a pedestrian
environment."
9. "Plan, design, and develop pedestrian linkages between parks, open spaces, village
cores, neighborhood shopping centers, neighborhood schools, and neighboring
municipalities."
10. "Support Mixed Use Development Opportunities. Mixed Use development opportunities
can be found throughout the Village, especially close to light rail. These opportunities
Page 317
should be supported to provide additional services and housing choices to those that live
or work in the area."
11. "Encourage Multimodal Connectivity with Emphasis on Bikeability and Walkability.
Projects in the Alhambra Village should be designed to focus on alternative modes of
transportation to encourage use by all residents."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase
our housing supply and catch up with other cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder
actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 318
Adam Stranieri
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19
For case file-
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:13 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19
Good morning Sofia,
Just writing to submit a public comment in support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in tonight's Camelback East VPC.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow
residents to live, enjoy community amenities and work in one place. This additionally meets several of the goals in the
Camelback East Character Plan including:
1. "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."
2. "Plan, design and develop pedestrian linkages between parks, open spaces, village cores, neighborhood
shopping centers, neighborhood schools and neighboring municipalities."
3. "Maintain shaded streetscapes and promote detached sidewalks. While there are many areas within the Village
that exhibit walkable shaded environments there are other areas where this environment is lacking. Shaded
streetscapes and detached sidewalks should be encouraged whenever possible."
4. "Promote shade and sustainability features with private development. More effort should be made to promote
multimodal transportation and green building. Developments are encouraged to provide bicycle parking, shaded
pedestrian pathways, recycling services and application of sustainable materials."
Page 319
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase our housing supply and catch up with other
cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 320
Adam Stranieri
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 10:47 AM
To: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19
Hi Adam,
I didn’t see a place in the text amendment folder for support letters, but I did receive the email below.
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Julianna Pierre
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19
Good morning Julianna,
Just writing to submit a public comment in support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in tonight's Desert View VPC.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and that you have
designated as a place to cluster high density in your Village Character Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy
community amenities and work in one place. This meets other goals in the Desert View Character Plan including:
1. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open space, shaded walkways,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguidesd
structures or underground where feasible."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
Page 321
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 322
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in North Mountain VPC
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 10:47:07 AM
Good morning Nick,
Sending this over to submit as public comment for the North Mountain VPC on Z-TA-3-19.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. This further aligns with North Mountain planning goals such
as:
1. "Cores, centers and corridors to be configured in a walkable manner and include a
variety of land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and cultural, housing, hotel
and resort, and where appropriate, some types of industry."
2. "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."
3. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking,
and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures or underground where
feasible."
4. "Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and redevelopment
projects throughout Phoenix."
5. "Design public infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities."
6. "Develop transit facilities in appropriate cores, centers and corridors to facilitate trip
reductions and use of mass transit."
7. "Promote development in compact cores, centers and corridors that are connected by
roads and transit, and are designed to encourage walking and bicycling."
8. "Revitalizing commercial centers. There are a number of commercial centers in the
Village that have the opportunity to revitalize and develop into more attractive places
for residents to shop."
9. "Promote local connectivity (walking and biking). While there are more public transit
options in the area, there is an opportunity to increase the connectivity of bike lanes and
develop more walkable communities."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
Page 323
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase
our housing supply and catch up with other cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder
actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 324
Attachment D
Application No. Z-TA-3-19
Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c;
Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A, 1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table
1310.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide; and amend
Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to update fees.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Date Recommendation Vote
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/26/2021 (No quorum) 10/25/2021 Approval with a modification to 6-4-1
8/23/2021 (No quorum) expand only to high capacity transit
9/27/2021 corridors.
Alhambra 7/27/2021 10/26/2021 Denial 13-3-0
Camelback East 8/3/2021 10/5/2021 Denial 10-2
Central City 7/12/2021 10/11/2021 Approval 10-3
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 10/14/2021 Denial 4-3-1
Desert View 7/13/2021 (No quorum) 10/5/2021 Denial 6-1
8/3/2021
Encanto 7/12/2021 10/4/2021 Denial 8-0
Estrella 7/20/2021 10/19/2021 Denial 7-0
Laveen 7/12/2021 10/11/2021 Approval with a modification to 8-0
expand only to Villlage Cores and
high capacity transit corridors.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 10/13/2021 Approval 6-2
North Gateway 8/12/2021 10/14/2021 Denial 4-0
North Mountain 7/21/2021 10/20/2021 Approval 11-2-2
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 10/4/2021 Approval 16-0
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 10/12/2021 Denial 3-2
South Mountain 7/13/2021 10/12/2021 Denial 5-4-1
Page 325
Attachment E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting September 27, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from the public were received on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family attached
related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU code and
other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus standards,
clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A related to fee
schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for
charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was
provided.
Darin Fisher asked if the committee would receive more information ahead of the
next meeting.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that additional information will be provided before the
next committee meeting.
Scott Crouch asked if Addendum A of the staff report will be shared with the
committee before the next meeting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 326
Mr. Bojórquez responded that information will be provided to the committee ahead
of the next meeting.
Chairman Elliott discussed the text amendment and stated that staff will be sharing
additional information regarding the text amendment before the next meeting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 327
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 27, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No speaker cards were received
At this time, Solorio arrived bringing to quorum to 14 members (13 being required for a
quorum)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Adams asked if the expansion will increase density (directly or indirectly) noting that an
additional 2,000 units of multifamily are proposed at Christown Spectrum Mall.
• Klimek stated that this text amendment does not rezone any property and that,
like cases requesting traditional zoning districts, that all cases are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis and go through three public hearings.
Page 328
Adams, noting that the purpose of the expansion is to increase density, asked if there is
a study infrastructure capacity such as water, sewer, schools, police, fire, and hospital
beds.
• Klimek responded that all rezoning cases are routed to interdepartmental
reviewers for comment on capacity in addition to being sent to the school
districts, APS, and SRP. The WU Code is not a single high-density zone but
rather a series of intensities called transects that can be applied to the
appropriate context.
Ammon noted that the pedestrian- and transit- orientation of the Walkable Urban Code
should produce an environment that does not require as much vehicle parking. He
asked if there has been thought in the text amendment to reducing parking
requirements for commercial development.
• Klimek responded that the text amendment does not modify many of the
regulations in the WU Code such as parking requirements. He added that the
WU Code does allow for parking reductions when applied within ¼ and ½ mile of
a light rail station and that the base parking standards are entirely contained in
Section 13 (WU Code) and include some reduced standards from those
contained in Section 702 which apply to all other zoning districts. Ammon
expressed support for reduced vehicle parking requirements.
Solorio noted that there are currently discrepancies in the Single Family Attached
Development Option especially in the WU Code. He expressed interest in those specific
modifications and requested the proposed language.
• Klimek agreed to send.
• Solorio added that this expansion will create an important tool for small scale
and affordable housing production which is especially important because of the
current housing supply and affordability crisis currently facing the city.
Bryck stated that he supports housing production and that the city needs it because
rents are becoming increasingly unattainable. He stated that the intent of the
ReinventPHX Plans were to fill-in the light rail corridors and expressed concerns that
the expansion will: justify density in areas without good transit; will draw development
attention away from high capacity transit; will not support the creation of “missing middle
housing” products such as townhomes and accessory dwelling units; and will only
benefit the institutional developers with the time and money to withstand a long rezoning
process.
He added that this process is moving quickly and is glad to see elements of the Housing
Phoenix Plan being implemented. He asked that the legalization of Accessory Dwelling
Units be prioritized with equal speed. He stated that he would like to see more nuance
to the text amendment such as a requirement to make the WU Code only eligible within
¼ or ½ mile of light rail or a Village Core. He added that he doesn’t believe the text
amendment gives enough power to staff or the VPC to deter situations where the WU
Code is not appropriate.
Page 329
Adams concurred with Bryck.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
None.
Page 330
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 3, 2021
Request From Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment, which
would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code citywide. She
explained that currently, only properties along the light rail corridors are eligible to
request this form-based zoning district, and that the proposal would allow for properties
that are not along the light rail to request WU Code zoning. She outlined the proposed
changes to the Zoning Ordinance and noted that the text amendment initiation language
includes reference to changing minimum acreage requirements for charter schools –
this will not be addressed in this text amendment.
Chair Jay Swart asked how staff will ensure that none of the charter school language is
included when this proposal returns to the committee for a vote. Mastikhina explained
that the text amendment proposal includes an exhibit outlining all of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance content changes, so the committee will have an opportunity to review
exactly what will be modified.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 331
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sarah Stockham, staff, reviewed the Walkable Urban Code history, Housing Phoenix
Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-oriented design, and no density
limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code transects. Ms. Stockham added that the
WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on design and providing
a greater diversity of housing options, the WU code prioritizes walkability, pedestrian
infrastructure and shade and showed examples of various frontage types. Ms.
Stockham clarified what the proposed text amendment does and does not accomplish
and described the various sections of the code which are proposed to be amended
pertaining to the removal of geographic restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design
review criteria, single-family attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify
relationship between WU code and other code sections, clarification on building
frontage types plus standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending
Appendix A related to fee schedules. Ms. Stockham concluded that this text
amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for charter schools at this
time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was provided.
Eva Olivas asked for clarification on the proposed addition to the fee schedule. Ms.
Stockham replied that the interim fees used by staff will be codified in into the fee
schedule table, and that they are not proposed to increase or decrease from their
current rate.
Ryan Boyd shared that while he likes the idea of expanding the option of WU Code
zoning, he asked the committee if other parts of the code should be updated for the
times.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 332
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 2
Chris Colyer replied that was a great question and that some issues with the code
might be site specific, but he will think about his experience with WU Code projects and
supports the text amendment.
Darlene Martinez thanked Mr. Boyd for this question and for Mr. Colyer for his
response, understanding that some conflicts with the code might be site-specific.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 333
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text
amendment, which would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code citywide. He explained that currently, only properties along the light rail
corridors are eligible to request this form-based zoning district, and that the
proposal would allow for properties that are not along the light rail to request WU
Code zoning. He outlined the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and
noted that the text amendment initiation language includes reference to changing
minimum acreage requirements for charter schools – this will not be addressed in
this text amendment.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked if light rail is being considered for the Deer
Valley Village area.
Mr. Simmons shared that light rail options are not currently being considered for
the Deer Valley Village area. Mr. Simmons also shared that this request would
provide an alternative zoning application option to prospective applicants.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 334
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 3, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee members Joseph Barto and Jill Hankins arrived to the meeting during
this item, bringing the quorum to 9 members.
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the
creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding WU Code. She
explained the existing WU code boundaries and transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding
references to newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text
amendment will remove geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property
owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update standards regarding single
family attached residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that
the text amendment will not automatically rezone any property or modify the
rezoning process. She also provided a summary of the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule,
will establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will
not change any non-WU Code fees.
Committee member Rick Powell asked how allowing WU Code throughout the
entire City would affect neighborhoods with Historic Preservation (HP)
designation. Julianna Pierre stated that properties with HP designation would
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 335
still be subject to the HP section of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant would
need to correspond with the City’s HP Office.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that the analysis for future Transit
Oriented Districts (TOD) should include distance to parks. Julianna Pierre
stated that she would pass that recommendation along to the staff working on the
text amendment.
Committee member Rick Nowell asked if there would be new information
presented on this item at the next meeting. Julianna Pierre stated that there
may be new information. She added that staff members working on the text
amendment are taking comments and concerns from the Village Planning
Committee (VPC) members prior to coming back for recommendation.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked for clarification regarding
transects and the rezoning process. Julianna Pierre explained that since the
process to rezone to WU Code would be the same as any other rezoning,
applicants and developers would receive feedback from staff about the
appropriateness of certain transects.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that WU code makes sense to keep mobility
and modernity in the core of the City. He added that this could be helpful since
walkability could be better throughout Phoenix.
Committee member Rick Powell asked for clarification regarding transects.
Julianna Pierre explained the twelve transect districts and how those districts
vary in intensity. Committee member Rick Powell asked why WU Code should
be permitted in Desert View. Julianna Pierre explained that even at lower
densities, WU Code would promote pedestrian oriented design with improved
walkability, infrastructure, and shade. Committee member Rick Powell stated
that WU Code made sense near transit, but not in Desert View. He added that
this seemed like a way for developers to push higher density. Committee
member Michelle Santoro stated that if WU Code was utilized in Desert View,
the City would assess the appropriate transect for the area.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked for clarification about the WU Code frontage
types. Julianna Pierre explained the different frontage types and showed
imagery from Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. She added that each transect
would permit certain frontage types. Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that the
frontage types are not compatible with the City or with the southwest character.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that the frontage types provide shade
and create an outside-inside design, which is conducive to the southwest.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he was concerned with the
idea of allowing WU Code City wide. He added that this is an opportunity for the
City to bring in density which will result in additional traffic, congestion, and
people.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 336
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
One speaker card was received on this item in support with the individual wishing to
speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Bryck asked if the proposed text amendment had been provided.
• Klimek responded that it will be provided with the staff report which is currently in
development.
Chairman Kleinman asked whether the development community is driving the request
and who initiated the text amendment. Searles echoed the question about who is
driving the text amendment.
Page 337
• Klimek responded that this was initiated by the Planning Commission at the
request of the City Council and the Planning and Development Department. He
added that the expansion of the Walkable Urban Code had been in discussion for
years.
Chairman Kleinman asked how this would apply to a project such as the Country Club
tower.
• Klimek responded that the Walkable Urban Code would have been an option for
the Country Club proposal but that an analysis of policy would still need to
support the scale proposed. He added that the provisions of the WU Code would
require compliant frontage types on both public streets.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mitchell Willard introduced himself as the Director of Development for the Urban
Phoenix Project and voiced their support for the text amendment on the basis that it will
allow private property owners to increase to improve the quality of life across the city
through benefits such as increase shade and bringing the parents of the street which
would not only benefit developers, but also the community at large. By promoting shade
and walkability in private developments, the expansion of the code is one tool to get the
city walking, bicycling, and using transit in their city. On a larger scale, he noted that a
more flexible code that focuses on creating a high-quality pedestrian environment with
opportunities for mixed-use will support affordability.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
The committee discussed the proposal with the following highlights.
Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code will:
• only benefit institutional builders;
• dilute the incentive of focusing development along light rail corridors;
• not help create missing-middle housing;
• not make sense because it was written to facilitate transit oriented development
and this expansion will allow those incentive standards without transit;
Support that the expansion of the WU Code on the basis that it
• should accommodate transit-oriented development only along light rail including
the new lines, but not be expanded city-wide;
Additional comments:
• The requirements of the rezoning process exclude small owners and developers
necessary to create missing middle housing. Incentives should be targeted to
support missing middle housing through small, non-institutional builders.
Page 338
• The WU Code was intended to be narrowly focused around light rail and should
remain focused around major public investments in transit.
• The WU Code allows for more negotiation which is good and bad.
Page 339
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 20, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family attached
related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU code and
other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus standards,
clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A related to fee
schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for
charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was
provided.
Lisa Perez has concerns over expanding WU code in some parts of the city,
especially areas along the western edge of the Estrella Village. She supports the
WU code, but wants to make sure that the expansion areas are appropriate.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 340
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment, which
would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code citywide. She
explained that currently, only properties along the light rail corridors are eligible to
request this form-based zoning district, and that the proposal would allow for properties
that are not along the light rail to request WU Code zoning. She outlined the proposed
changes to the Zoning Ordinance and noted that the text amendment initiation language
includes reference to changing minimum acreage requirements for charter schools –
this will not be addressed in this text amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dan Penton asked if staff can provide a workshop to committee and community
members to provide a more in-depth explanation of the WU Code, as it is not something
that Laveen has dealt with before. He asked if this text amendment would make it
applicable to Laveen. Mastikhina replied yes, a workshop can be arranged, and
explained that, if this text amendment is approved, the WU Code zoning would be
applicable citywide. However, it does not automatically change individual properties’
zoning designations. A property owner would still need to go through the regular
rezoning process to request WU Code zoning, just like any other zoning district.
Cory Kinkaid, with the Urban Phoenix Project, explained the goal of his organization,
which is to help Phoenix become a city where walking, biking, and transit are
comfortable and convenient options. He expressed support for the text amendment,
stating that it would greatly improve walkability throughout the city.
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Robert Branscomb asked staff to explain the committee that reviews WU Code
applications, and if they provide a recommendation to the City Council on these types of
developments. Mastikhina replied that there is one committee, the Design Review
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 341
Committee, which reviews and approves applications for design alternatives that
deviate from the standards set forth in the WU Code. They review to ensure that the
intent of creating a walkable urban fabric is upheld via proposed design alternatives.
They are also a quasi-judicial hearing body, much like the Zoning Adjustment Hearing
Officer, and their decision is final. If appealed, the case will ultimately go to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
Chair Tonya Glass expressed her support for the proposal and asked if there will also
be development of corridor plans to aid in achieving the architectural aesthetic that the
community wants for Laveen. Mastikhina replied that this is a great idea, and that
subsequent plans and policies following the adoption of this text amendment, as they
relate to the appropriateness of a form-based code depending on individual village
character, is something that staff may pursue.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 342
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 14, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sarah Stockham, staff, reviewed the Walkable Urban Code history, Housing Phoenix
Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-oriented design, and no density
limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code transects. Ms. Stockham added that the
WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on design and providing
a greater diversity of housing options, the WU code prioritizes walkability, pedestrian
infrastructure and shade and showed examples of various frontage types. Ms.
Stockham clarified what the proposed text amendment does and does not accomplish
and described the various sections of the code which are proposed to be amended
pertaining to the removal of geographic restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design
review criteria, single-family attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify
relationship between WU code and other code sections, clarification on building
frontage types plus standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending
Appendix A related to fee schedules. Ms. Stockham concluded that this text amendment
does not propose minimum acreage limitations for charter schools at this time, and a
timeline of the text amendment case was provided.
Sandra Oviedo asked how they could bring the Walkable Urban Code projects to
Maryvale, what is the incentive to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code and if this will
require the installation of bike lanes. Ms. Stockham replied that this text amendment
does not rezone any property outright, but it allows property owners the option to rezone
to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, the installation of bike lanes for a project is done
with the collaboration of the Street Transportation Department and one of the incentives
is the no limit on density for Walkable Urban Code projects.
Chair Gene Derie clarified that this text amendment would allow the Walkable Urban
Code as an option for rezoning requests.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 343
Mike Weber shared that he had observed many stucco-covered communities near light
rail which do not appear to be architecturally-design focused and while there are bicycle
lanes in the Valley they are rarely used because street conditions are unsafe.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 344
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting August 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding WU Code. She explained the existing WU code boundaries and
transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing Phoenix
Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding references to
newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text amendment will remove
geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU
Code, and update standards regarding single family attached residential development
outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically
rezone any property or modify the rezoning process. She also provided a summary of
the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule, will
establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will not change
any non-WU Code fees.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 345
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 21, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No speaker cards were received
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Krentz thanked Klimek for the presentation.
Page 346
At this time, Veidmark and Herrera arrived bringing the quorum to 16 members (11
being required for a quorum).
Page 347
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
INFORMATION ONLY
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the WU Code came to fruition in the first place. He went over
what this Text Amendment request would update to include the expansion on
the WU Code boundaries, amendment of the zoning fee schedule, and minimum
acreage limitations for Charter Schools. Mr. Simmons elaborated on why
expanding the WU-Code boundaries would help the growth of the City of
Phoenix. He shared that it would support the Housing Phoenix Plan, it would
promote pedestrian oriented design and set no limit on dwelling unit density.
Further, Mr. Simmons shared that the Kierland area has largely redeveloped
through PUD rezoning requests, which utilize WU-Code standards in the PUD
narratives. Mr. Simmons also went over WU-Code design standards, which
focus on design rather than land use, a form based code. Mr. Simmons shared
the hearing schedule with the committee, stating that this will come back in front
of them for recommendation in the near term.
VPC Response:
No discussion
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 348
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee member Scott Lawrence arrived to the meeting during this item,
bringing the quorum to 5 members.
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the
creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding WU Code. She
explained the existing WU code boundaries and transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding
references to newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text
amendment will remove geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property
owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update standards regarding single
family attached residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that
the text amendment will not automatically rezone any property or modify the
rezoning process. She also provided a summary of the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule,
will establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will
not change any non-WU Code fees.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked how developers would know what
transect to apply for. Julianna Pierre explained that since the process to rezone
to WU Code would be the same as any other rezoning, applicants and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 349
developers would receive feedback from staff about the appropriateness of
requests during the Rezoning Pre-Application meeting. She added that there will
be public and Committee member input during the rezoning process, as with any
other rezoning case.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked for clarification regarding the
expansion of the WU Code and the rezoning process. Julianna Pierre
explained that the expansion would not automatically rezone any properties. She
stated that WU Code rezoning cases would be handled on a case by case basis.
She added that location, existing density, and existing infrastructure could all be
factors that influence appropriateness of a request.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 350
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
One member of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family
attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU
code and other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus
standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A
related to fee schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage
limitations for charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment
case was provided.
Gene Holmerud asked if this text amendment is going to be presented to all the
Village Planning Committees (VPC’s).
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this text amendment case is to be presented to all
the VPC’s in the next few weeks.
Marcia Busching stated that expanding the Walkable Urban (WU) code is good,
but she is concerned with allow it citywide. WU code should be limited along arterial
streets.
Page 351
Trent Marchuk asked if the regulations in the Overlay Districts would prevail over
WU code.
Mr. Bojórquez stated that his understanding is that regulatory Overlay Districts
would prevail over WU code zoning.
Joseph Larios asked on the input from the other VPC’s regarding this text
amendment case.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this is just the second night where the text
amendment is presented to a VPC.
Shelly Smith asked how the city will address existing infrastructure and can the city
require existing properties to conform to new requirements.
Gene Holmerud discussed the concept of grandfathered entitlements and difficulty
with requiring new improvements unless safety is at risk.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if there is a city department or budget set aside to
build new sidewalks or rehabilitate existing ones in parts of the city.
Mr. Bojórquez stated that he is not directly involved in related efforts but imagines
that once a project is approved by the city, it is very difficult to require additional
improvements to a specific property once this has been okayed to operate. He is
not knowledgeable on the specific budget items within the overall city budget, but
imagines there is funding for maintenance or repair of infrastructure, including
sidewalks.
Lee Coleman stated that new sidewalks are being installed in his neighborhood,
and it is difficult to require additional improvements after the city approves a project.
Mr. Marchuk asked about the 5-percent open space requirement and if new parks
would be developed throughout the city to accommodate for new residents.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the 5-percent open space requirement is the same
as currently required for multifamily uses in conventional zoning districts. He added
that the Parks and Recreation Department has identified proposed park sites in a
city wide plan.
Fatima Said asked if there is an incentive to developers to use WU code zoning
and stated that the Chicanos Por La Causa rezoning PUD case should be
considered as this project is displacing residents.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that WU code zoning does not have a density cap and
requires enhanced street frontages that will help improve a project.
Page 352
Greg Brownell stated that there is no real incentive for developers and does not
foresee new park sites being built in the future.
Chairwoman Daniels likes WU code due to potential economic development
opportunities and could see new projects being built along the Rio Salado and
between 7th Avenue to 7th Street. She agrees that no new park sites will likely be
built in the South Mountain Village.
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and discussed two
questions that he had regarding this text amendment case:
• Are there any land uses allowed today that would be considered legally non-
conforming if this text amendment is approved?
• Will the rezoning process to seek WU code allow for public input?
Chairwoman Daniels thanked Mr. Paulin and asked staff for clarification on the
questions.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this text amendment case does not affect individual
properties, only properties that would be seeking rezoning in the future. He also
mentioned that public input will remain part of the rezoning process, including for
WU code zoning.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
On July 23, 2021 staff sent an email to all member of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee correcting the statement made during the July 13, 2021 meeting
regarding Overlay Districts superseding the Walkable Urban (WU) code zoning. Staff
clarified that the WU code zoning will supersede regulatory Overlay Districts which are
present on any specific property in regards to applicable development standards.
Page 353
Attachment F
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 25, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation in Addendum A
with modifications
Vote 6-4-1, motion passed; Members Benezra, Crouch,
Meier, Pritchette, Gasparro and Elliott in favor; Members
Fisher, Maloney, Sharer and Symes in dissent. Member
Holt abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Three members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU Code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the city.
He discussed elements of the WU Code which prioritize the pedestrian environment
and explained the transect district acronym plus unique development standards.
Examples of what each transect district could look like were provided. This proposal
would allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards
regarding single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal
does not rezone any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does
not modify the applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD
District plans. Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of regulatory
overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An
overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was
provided. Staff recommends approval per Addendum A of the staff report and
discussed the schedule for this case.
Chairman Elliott asked for committee member questions or comments from the
public.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 354
Neal Haddad, member of the public, stated that this text amendment case is putting
the cart before the horse, as the concept does not work without having a transect map.
A vision document like the General Plan that incorporates citizen input is needed for
this vision. This case has a generational impact, and VPC members should not be
forced into deciding without understanding this better. Other VPC’s have denied this
request and requests that this committee also vote to deny this case.
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, stated that this text amendment is better suited
for TOD areas like the original WU Code applicability boundary. There was no public
input on this proposal, which allows parking waivers without imposing a cap on density.
He wonders who will decide on what WU Code transect is appropriate citywide.
Homeowners are left wondering where development will happen and will have to battle
each project with an applicant’s attorney regarding the density. Eight Village Planning
Committees have denied this case and asked the committee to deny the request too.
Alex Benezra stated that a walkable street was designed to resemble something like
the Miracle Mile corridor along McDowell Road. He asked the speaker on what a
walkable street should look like.
Mr. Paulin responded that if staff provided more details on the request, there might be
areas where this could be appropriate. McDowell Road is not a walkable street and
discussed the corridor. This is an issue largely of encouraging higher density in
neighborhoods.
Mr. Benezra asked if this proposal seems to be ahead of where the city is at now.
Mr. Paulin responded that the issue is cramming density into established
neighborhoods. The city needs housing and discussed the original proposal for the WU
Code which limited the applicability areas along light rail transit.
Ryan Boyd, member of the public, supports this text amendment which will allow WU
Code as an option citywide. He stated that all can agree that at a minimum WU Code is
appropriate along TOD areas, but there are other areas where it could be appropriate.
There was lots of public input during the Housing Phoenix Plan adoption, which
discussed the potential expansion of WU Code. This allows for a wide range of housing
options through various transects which are not all high intensity transects.
Mike Maloney asked staff for clarification on why this text amendment case is being
requested. Mr. Bojórquez responded that this case is being requested for two
primary reasons including the expansion of mass-transit corridors throughout the
city. Also, WU Code will allow for the various forms of housing types.
Chairman Elliott asked staff for clarification on the applicability for this text
amendment case. Mr. Bojórquez responded by discussed the staff
recommendation found in Addendum A of the staff report, which proposes to allow
WU Code citywide. However, the Village Planning Committee may impose a
geographic restriction to limit the applicability of WU Code to areas such as Village
Cores and/or mass-transit corridors, among other recommendations.
Darin Fisher asked for clarification of how the WU Code would affect the Village.
Mr. Bojórquez responded this text amendment case would allow property owners to
rezone to WU Code across the city or based on the geographic restrictions if
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 355
imposed by the committee. He discussed the location of the Ahwatukee Foothills
Village Core.
Darin Fisher stated that the Village Core along 48th Street and Ray Road is one of
the most dangerous intersections in the Ahwatukee Foothills Village for pedestrians.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the committee could limit this text amendment only to
apply along mass-transit corridors if Village Cores were a concern.
Mr. Benezra agrees with Mr. Fisher regarding the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Core
being a dangerous location for more pedestrians. He would love Phoenix to be more
walkable and feels that there are areas of the city where WU Code could be more
appropriate.
Chairman Elliott asked for further discussion or a motion on this item.
MOTION:
Mr. Benezra motioned to approve case Z-TA-3-19 per the staff recommendation in
Addendum A of the staff report, with a modification that restricts the applicability
area of the WU Code to only along mass-transit corridors. Mr. Meier seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
6-4-1, motion passed; Members Benezra, Crouch, Meier, Pritchette, Gasparro and
Elliott in favor; Members Fisher, Maloney, Sharer and Symes in dissent. Member
Holt abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 356
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 26, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts and administrative temporary use
permits.
Recommendation Deny
Vote: 13-3-0, motion passes with: Adams, Ammon, Bryck,
DeGraffenreid, Ender, Fitzgerald, Harris, Jones, Krietor,
LeBlanc, Malkoon, McCabe, and Smith in support;
Keyser, Solorio, and Chair Shore in dissent; and none in
abstention.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ammon arrived bringing the quorum to 16 members (11 being required for a
quorum).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July. The input received from the
informational sessions was studied and the staff recommendation was revised in
Addendum A which is now before the committee for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half
mile from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s
form-based approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors,
such as village cores and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes
geographic constraints and would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU
Code city-wide. The request does not rezone any property, modify any process,
or modify any existing policy plan or standard. The language proposed in
Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to clarify how the WU Code will
interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in
different contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on
Page 357
trees, shade, and human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU
Code expansion would proliferate high-density development throughout the city
but explained that this is a misconception because there are existing zoning tools
that allow high density development in areas where the WU Code is not currently
an option, including Planned Unit Developments. While certain WU Code
Transects allow for high density, these transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented
requirements that are not required in alternative high-density options. The
rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two meetings with staff,
one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused on
determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by
stating that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear
before the Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Adams expressed concern that this will allow intensity where it doesn’t below
and asked staff if the request is motivated by a desire to increase revenue.
Klimek stated that the request doesn’t rezone any property and doesn’t change
any process, thereby not a tactic to increase development activity. Where
appropriate, the WU Code will produce a better built environment and the
purpose of the TA is to allow it as another tool.
LeBlanc asked why other committees have opposed the request. Klimek
responded that several have expressed concern about how the WU Code will be
implemented outside of light rail corridors, about how it should be limited to light
rail corridors only, and others felt there should have been more public
engagement.
Malkoon noted that he has seen several WU Code projects that appear to have
gotten out of their requirement for detached sidewalks including at the northwest
corner of Central Avenue and Indian School Road. Explaining how important it is
for pedestrian safety, he asked how developers are avoiding these requirements
in WU Code. Klimek responded that shaded and detached sidewalks are
required by the WU Code, that he does not have information regarding the
project referenced but explained that there is a provision that allows for attached
sidewalks if a utility conflict exists.
Ender asked if multi-story buildings are permitted to build anywhere within one-
half mile of light rail. Klimek responded that the WU Code is not granted to any
property by-right without a rezoning process, only that in the original
ReinventPHX Planning Areas, an applicant can request to use the WU Code if
they desire but they would still need to go through the rezoning process. Ender
expressed concern that the request may have unintended consequences and the
TA does not offer sufficient protections.
Page 358
Jones expressed concern regarding the likelihood for unintended consequences
on areas such as North Central or Arcadia and that this city-wide expansion
would open the floodgates to high density requests. He asked staff for the best
argument in support. Klimek responded that there are areas outside of the areas
currently served by light rail where WU Code would be the best tool, including
additional high-capacity transit corridors and village cores.
Fitzgerald stated that this is a one-size fits all approach that will make it easier
for developers to max-out their entitlements and will be voting no because it
gives the city and the developers too much flexibility.
Bryck stated that he supports housing development especially missing middle
products, but the WU Code was written explicitly to accompany the ReinventPHX
plans which had significant public engagement to thoughtfully map each property
with a recommended transect. In these areas, the WU Code was intended as an
incentive to fill in underutilized parcels with development and that he is
concerned the expansion will draw development away from where it is needed
and where it was planned through ReinventPHX before the core is built-out.
Ammon echoed Bryck’s comments. He asked what isn’t working that makes this
TA necessary such as processes or districts that need to be modified or
replaced. He also asked where he can find materials to gain a much deeper
understand of this and its potential implications. Klimek responded that some of
the existing zoning tools are not adaptable to the diverse contexts of the city and
the WU Code was specifically written for areas that have or desire a walkable
urban form, such as 19North, South Central, or the village cores. For a deeper
understanding, he recommended the staff reports as the most thorough analysis
available at this time.
Keyser sought to confirm the following: the TA does not rezone property; the TA
does not change any processes; and the TA does not change development
policy to support intensity at the interior of neighborhood. Klimek confirmed.
Keyser stated that the WU Code contains many elements that the community
wants and that the VPC often stipulates including shaded and detached
sidewalks which was urgently needed. Instead of a handout to developers, he
stated that this feels like it will create better built environments in areas most
appropriate for intensity, such as arterial streets. Klimek stated that while people
often think of intensity when they think of development, there have been two
good examples of two- and three – story infill development projects in the
Encanto Village. These projects utilized the WU Code, and the form-based
approach allowed the applicants to tailor their project to the context of the
neighborhood.
Solorio stated that an element missing from the discussion is the number of
requests that are rejected by staff or the Council Offices before they ever begin
the formal rezoning process or reach the VPC. The expanded WU Code will not
Page 359
open the floodgates to inappropriate requests because staff processes and
public processes will remain unchanged. The WU Code is a good tool to deliver
missing middle housing in a form that is walkable.
McCabe stated that the WU Code is an effective tool and that he sees many
areas where it could be effectively. He explained that he is generally supportive
but that he will be keeping an open mind during public comment and discussion.
Harris stated that this isn’t a free pass to developers because it does not change
existing city processes. She asked if this could be amended in the future. Klimek
confirmed that the code can be changed through a TA process identical to this
one.
Adams stated that this will open the floodgates to inappropriate requests and
that stringent processes and evaluations will eventually erode.
Jones stated that there is no reason to support this request and that other zoning
districts could be amended to reflect priorities such as shade.
Keyser stated that projects succeed or fail on their own merits and that this TA
only allows a new tool that could be considered in other parts of the city. If
expanded, projects requesting WU Code would still succeed or fail on their own
merits due to staff processes and the public processes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ryan Boyd (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as being with
the Urban Phoenix Project and thanked the members for their great discussion.
He expressed that this TA is about options and that the Village, Planning
Commission, and City Council can recommend approving or deny any request
that comes before them based on appropriateness. He added that one of the
reasons he supports to TA is because of the Housing Phoenix Plan and its dire
need for additional housing, especially in small forms such as duplexes and
multifamily which is best handled through a form-based code. He added that the
lowest intensity transects permit a suburban form of development and even for
low density redevelopment, an applicant would still need to navigate the 6-month
rezoning process.
Bramley Paulin (registered in neutrality to this item) stated that the WU Code
was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards
encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of
parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it
was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on
established single-family residential neighborhoods and that this is part of the
city’s effort to add 50,000 dwelling units throughout the city, including in
established neighborhoods. He concluded by sharing that 8 VPCs have
recommended denial.
Page 360
Neal Haddad (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as being from
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. The WU Code only makes sense
when transit is present and, in Phoenix that area is limited so, he asked why it
makes sense to expand a transit-oriented code to govern land that is not
walkable and served by transit. He added that the Congress for New Urbanism
has stated that a form-based code should be accompanied by a transect map
that has been developed with public input to guide density to where it belongs. At
this stage, there are no standards or vision for how the code will be applied.
Opal Wagner (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself and stated
that, like Member Jones, she has not heard a compelling reason for the TA. She
stated that she supports the light rail and supports the WU Code but that it was
written and adopted specifically to govern development along the light rail and
the TA too broadly redefines the purpose of the Code. She expressed concern
that this may promote auto-dependance by supporting density in areas without
transit. She added that the WU Code includes parking reductions which only
makes sense with high-capacity transit.
Anne Ender (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself as representing
the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association and stated that the board
unanimously opposes this text amendment. There are not sufficient protections
to neighborhoods and there are not enough details on how and where the WU
Code will be implemented. She stated the light rail has blighted many of the
neighborhoods with drugs and crime and that it is only though cooperation with
law enforcement that neighborhoods have been able to protect themselves.
Nicole Rodriguez (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself as a
member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and echoed the concerns
voiced by Member Bryck. She added that there is a way for the Village Planning
Committees to invoke a text amendment and that these committees do not need
to rely on the City Council or Planning Commission to make the first move. She
stated that she supports WU Code in all light rail corridors but that this is not the
right process to accomplish that outcome.
Andi Abkarian (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself and thanked
the committee for their discussion and deliberation. She was involved in the
development of the city’s downtown code which is also form-based. She stated
that she is concerned with the vague definitions contained in the TA, its process
which lacked public engagement. The process to establish the WU Code and the
DTC was extensive and accompanied by area plans but this expansion does not
provide sufficient guidance to the community, to staff, and to recommending
bodies on how this will be used or why and where it could be appropriate.
STAFF RESPONSE
Page 361
Klimek thanked the committee for their questions and comments and thanked
the attending public for the same. The TA does not dilute the incentives
contained in the ReinventPHX Plans because those plans contain recommended
transects which provide guidance to potential applicants on what district will be
supported by staff. The TA will not provide parking reductions in areas without
light rail because WU Code parking reductions are only permitted within walking
distance of light rail. The TA will not modify any process, direct applicants to the
WU Code, or incentivize its use. The TA will only provide another tool for
applicants, staff, the public, and the recommending bodies to consider. He
concluded by sharing a map of the various regulatory plans, overlays, and policy
areas within the Alhambra Village and indicated that several of the other VPCs
have voted to place geographic restrictions into their recommendations.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION: Jones made a motion to deny the request. Second by LeBlanc.
DISCUSSION:
Jones explained that there has been no public process and that it’s bad that staff
is advocating so hard and even suggesting that it may be appropriate to place
arbitrary geographic restrictions. He said that he would be supportive of WU
Code in light rail corridors, but this isn’t the right process for it and that
geographic restrictions would be arbitrary and inappropriate through this process.
Ender stated that crime needs to be addressed first.
Harris stated that the committee should be allowed time to consider potential
geographic restrictions. She stated that she will voting to deny because she feels
obligated to the public.
Keyser stated that the critique of there being no public input is hyperbole. This is
the public process, and the code is not being imposed on anyone and it will only
be put in place if requested by an applicant and if supported by staff, the
neighborhood, and the recommending bodies. He reiterated an earlier comment
that requests will continue to success or fail on their own merits and that this
doesn’t change any processes or create policy to support density where it
doesn’t belong.
Solorio stated that this came from the Housing Phoenix Plan and that he is
disappointed the Housing Department was not present to share their perspective
on how this will help create much needed housing.
Jones agreed that the Housing Department should have been in attendance to
share their idea. The 150 VPC members citywide cannot possibly represent the
millions of residents in the city and that’s why an additional process is needed.
The responsibility of this VPC is to ensure the proposals have enough detail to
Page 362
be in the best interest of the community and that the public has been informed,
and this proposal does neither.
VOTE: 13-3-0, motion passes with: Adams, Ammon, Bryck, DeGraffenreid,
Ender, Fitzgerald, Harris, Jones, Krietor, LeBlanc, Malkoon, McCabe, and Smith
in support; Keyser, Solorio, and Chair Shore in dissent; and none in abstention.
Page 363
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-2
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, explained that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
rezone to WU Code. She explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and
update standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process. She then discussed the revisions in Addendum
A, which include the applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and
Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. She also clarified that WU Code would not
eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans. She reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Larry Whitesell expressed his opposition to the request, stating that it is a one-size-fits-
all approach, and that it will be abused by developers much like the PUD mechanism.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 364
He stated that he I only supportive of WU Code being expanded along light rail lines as
they get built out.
Neal Haddad stated that this is an aspirational issue based on certain Councilmembers’
wishes and that WU Code does not create walkable communities.
Bradley Paulin stated that the WU Code was specifically designed for properties along
the light rail and its standards encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units,
and reduction of parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city
and that it was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack
on established single-family residential neighborhoods.
Mastikhina thanked the community members for their participation and comments. She
explained that the WU Code has several different transect districts that address different
levels of urban intensity, from a suburban-level development to a business core high-
rise type of development. As such, the WU Code is designed to accommodate all types
of urban environments, not just high intensity ones, and can also be successfully
implemented near single-family neighborhoods with minimal impact. She further
explained that any request to rezone to WU Code would still have to go through the
rezoning staff review and public hearing process, where the appropriateness of each
request would be thoroughly evaluated. This request would not automatically rezone
any properties to WU Code. She also explained that there are several properties, even
in low-density parts of the city such as Laveen, that are already utilizing tools such as
Height and Density Waivers to achieve the same intensity of certain WU Code transects
but are not held to the same enhanced site and architectural design standards as
properties zoned WU Code.
MOTION
Craig Tribken made a motion to approve the request per the staff recommendation.
The motion failed to receive a second.
Linda Bair made a motion to deny the request as filed. Vice Chair William Fischbach
seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION
Barry Paceley stated that he wishes they had received more information on this
request.
Chair Jay Swart commended the community members that spoke on this item for their
thoroughness, and stated that although staff gave a great presentation, the request is
simply too vague and ambiguous. He stated that this makes it difficult to support it.
VOTE
10-2: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Bair, Bayless,
Thraen, Garcia, Miller, Paceley, and Sharaby in favor, and committee members
Eichelkraut and Tribken dissenting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 365
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 11, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request From boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts and administrative temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Approval per Addendum A
VPC Vote 10-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
One request to speak in opposition was made for this request.
Sarah Stockham, staff, provided a summary of the request involving the expansion of
the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting the existing boundaries where
WU code is available today, and the need for this text amendment given the expansion
of mass-transit to other parts of the city. Ms. Stockham added that this proposal would
allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding
single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas, this proposal does not rezone
any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the
applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Ms.
Stockham explained that Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of
regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit
fees. An overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts
was provided, and staff concluded with their recommendation of approval per
Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the hearing schedule for this case.
Questions from the Committee:
Eva Olivas asked how outreach was performed for this request. Ms. Stockham replied
that the request was heard at each Village Planning Committee for information only,
and there could have been discussions with management with individuals, but she
does not have the exact day and time of those meetings as she is not the staff who is
processing this request.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 366
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 2
Ryan Boyd commented that this request was also a part of the Housing Phoenix Plan
and outreach could have been conducted during those meetings as well. Ms.
Stockham confirmed that expanding the Walkable Urban Code was one of the land
use strategies of the Housing Phoenix Plan and that
Public Comment:
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that the WU
Code was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards
encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He
stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever
created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-
family residential neighborhoods and encouraged the committee to deny this request.
Darlene Martinez asked if anyone else has made the same comment on this request.
Ms. Stockham replied that Mr. Paulin has made the same comment at other Village
Planning Committee meetings.
Staff Response:
Ms. Stockham reiterated staff’s recommendation, that this request is to expand the
option to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, it does not rezone properties
outright and that the process for evaluating and analyzing the appropriateness of
rezoning requests is comprehensive.
Motion:
Chris Colyer motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A. Ryan
Boyd seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ryan Boyd explained that he understands why other Villages might have concerns but
this request makes the WU Code an option and not everything in the WU Code is a
skyscraper. Mr. Boyd added that the sites have been using the WU Code standards in
PUDs, and if a WU Code request is inappropriate the Village Planning Committee can
reject it and has control over where it is implemented. Mr. Boyd concluded that in
terms of public outreach, this has case has already gone to the other villages for input,
has taken too long to go for recommendation and reiterated that request just makes the
WU Code an option.
Darlene Martinez echoed Mr. Boyd’s comments.
Eva Olivas agreed with Mr. Boyd’s comments that swayed her to support the request
and shared that this is part of the Housing Phoenix Plan and will create the opportunity
to increase housing density in areas that are not TOD areas.
Chair Rachel Frazier Johnson shared concern with this request and the lack of
information on public outreach.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 367
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 3
Vote:
10-3, motion to approve Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A passes with Committee Members
Boyd, Burns, Colyer, Gaona, Gonzalez, Martinez, Olivas, Panetta, Starks, and
Sonoskey in favor with Committee Members Dubasik, Lockhart and R. Johnson
opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 368
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 14, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-3-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
2 people registered to in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. David Simmons, staff, introduced himself and gave an overview of the
request to include the objective of expanding the WU Code citywide, covered the
updated references to relevant policy plans that WU Code is intended to
implement, the modification of lot standards to address development proposals in
non-TOD districts, explained minor clarifications regarding existing terminology
relevant to the expansion and went over the need to adopt related WU Code and
ATUP fees as a result of this update. Mr. Simmons also showed several
examples of the various transect districts outlined in the request and how staff
would analyze requests as they are submitted, similar to any other rezoning
request.
VPC Discussion:
None
Public Comment:
Mr. Bramley Paulin stated that Mr. Simmons did an impeccable job presenting
the request. He shared that he has concerns with the lack of public input on the
request to date. He shared concerns with density allowances as well as
reductions in required parking outlined in the various transect districts. He stated
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 369
that there are too many unknown details in the request. He does not support a
recommendation for approval.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked Mr. Paulin if this request was initiated by staff or private.
Mr. Bramley shared that this request is applicant driven.
Mr. Larry Whitesell, Vice Chair of the Peak Neighborhood Association, shared
that he has one major concern. This request puts the cart before the horse. He
suggested that this request needs more citizen driven working groups on this
request to include transect maps. He shared that he believes this request should
not be city wide and should be phased in in TOPS districts as light rail is
expanded.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil shared that he also sits on the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee and this item was voted down by that Village. He stated that the
request should be voted down by the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
too. He does not believe the request should expand the WU Code city wide.
Chairman Joseph Grossman stated that he does not know enough about the
request to make an informed decision at this point in time.
MOTION:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil made a motion to recommend denial of Text Amendment Case
No. Z-TA-3-19.
Mr. Keith Greenberg seconded the motion.
MOTION:
Mr. Mark Davenport made a motion to recommend approval of Text
Amendment Case No. Z-TA-3-19, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Matthew Kenney seconded the motion.
Mr. Virgil’s motion was on the floor first. Chairman Grossman called for a vote
for the first motion, to recommend denial of the request.
VOTE:
4-3-1 with committee members Greenberg, Levy, Romero and Virgil in favor.
Committee members Davenport, Kenney and Shipman not in favor. Chairman
Grossman abstained.
Mr. Davenport removed his motion to recommend approval from consideration.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 370
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code,
and update standards regarding single family attached residential development
outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not
automatically rezone any property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the
applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative
Temporary Use Permit fees. She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate
Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise
District, and Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were
approved, applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through
the standard rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included
the pre-application meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 371
added that the public hearings would allow for public input. She also provided
examples of low-density products that were developed under WU Code zoning
Committee member Rick Nowell asked if WU Code would make it easier to
rezone a specific site. Julianna Pierre stated that if an applicant was rezoning
to WU Code, they would still have to go through the standard rezoning process.
She stated that it may be easier for certain products to be built using WU Code
because the applicant may not have to, in some cases, go through the longer
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the same results.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he was concerned with the
idea of allowing WU Code City wide. He added that this is an opportunity for the
City to bring in density which will result in additional traffic, congestion, and
people.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that he was supportive of WU Code near
transit oriented development, but felt that it was not applicable citywide.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked if rezoning to WU Code could
replace the PUD process. Julianna Pierre explained that as of right now, there
are some applicants that use the PUD process to generate the same results as
WU Code because WU Code is not available citywide. She stated that if the text
amendment is approved, applicants could, in some cases, rezone to WU Code
instead of going through the longer PUD process. Committee member
Michelle Santoro stated that she understood the intent of the text amendment,
but felt that WU Code may not be needed in the Desert View Village.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked if the text amendment had been
presented to other Village Planning Committees (VPC). Julianna Pierre stated
that the text amendment had been presented to the Encanto and Paradise Valley
VPCs.
Committee member Rick Nowell stated that he had concerns about increased
density as a result of WU Code being permitted citywide.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19. The
motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Nowell.
VOTE: 6-1 with Committee Members Lagrave, Kollar, Nowell, Santoro, and
Younger in favor and Chair Bowser in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 372
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 4, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-0-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Three speaker cards were received with all three in opposition and wishing to speak.
At this time, Benjamin, Cothron, and Searles departed the meeting reducing the quorum
to eight members (eight being required for a quorum).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July and to the Encanto VPC at the July
12th meeting. The input received from the informational sessions was studied and the
staff recommendation was revised in Addendum A which is now before the committee
for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half mile
from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s form-based
approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors, such as village cores
and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes geographic constraints and
would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU Code city-wide. The request does
not rezone any property, modify any process, or modify any existing policy plan or
standard. The language proposed in Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to
clarify how the WU Code will interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in different
contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on trees, shade, and
human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU Code expansion would
proliferate high-density development throughout the city but explained that this is a
misconception because there are existing zoning tools that allow high density
Page 373
development in areas where the WU Code is not currently an option, including Planned
Unit Developments. While certain WU Code Transects allow for high density, these
transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented requirements that are not required in alternative
high-density options. The rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two
meetings with staff, one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused
on determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by stating
that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear before the
Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Benjamin asked if the text amendment addresses charter schools. Klimek responded
that when the text amendment was initiated, it was intended to cover more topics but
has been pulled back to focus on the WU Code.
Wagner stated that 1301.B in the text amendment removes “Central Valley East Valley
Light Rail Corridor” from the purpose and intent statement and substitutes “Transit
Corridors”, but that language is not defined. Klimek responded that the proposed
language is intended to be more broadly to recognize that the code may be appropriate
outside of light rail corridors. Wagner stated that she would be more comfortable if
transit corridor were defined because without parameters this language could be used
to justify increased intensity virtually anywhere. The WU Code was specifically written to
decrease dependency on automobiles and by putting density in far flung parts of the city
without transit will increase automobile use. The WU Code has not reached its potential
in the light rail corridors where vacant lots continue to exist, and it would be a disservice
to siphon off new development in those corridors before the massive investment in light
rail has fully come to fruition. The WU Code was written with input from the residents of
Phoenix and this process has not adequately engaged the community. Klimek added
that the totality of language in 1303.B emphasizes the use of the WU Code to advance
development in “Transit Corridors” and other contexts such as policy plans.
Vice Chair Bryck stated that he has gone back and forth on the topic including to allow
more tools to support housing development but continued returning to the extensive
public engagement efforts behind the ReinventPHX Plans to map specific
recommended transects parcel by parcel. He expressed concern that there is no policy
guidance for what level of intensity is appropriate outside of the light rail corridors and,
outside of those corridors, it will be up to staff to decide and that’s too much
responsibility. He added that the WU Code was intended to be a carrot to fill in these
vacant lots and that the cases heard tonight have been great examples of what WU
Code was intended to do; he asked, would these projects have happened if WU Code
was allowed everywhere. He added that Phoenix has a habit of moving on to focus on
different areas before they are finished with the last, for example, from downtown to
midtown to 24th Street and Camelback. He stated that there are too many unknowns
and asked what are the transects going to be in Ahwatukee or Rio Vista.
Page 374
Rodriguez echoed the concerns of Vice Chair Bryck and Member Wagner and stated
that she wishes it had come out a month earlier. She expressed concerns regarding
car-centric development. She asked if there is the potential for the process to end up in
a Zoning Hearing Officer’s hands or if there are loopholes to circumvent the VPC.
Klimek responded that all rezoning requests need to be presented to the VPC,
Planning Commission, and City Council. He added that some properties with existing
zoning entitlements, such as WU Code, may seek relief through a Variance, Use
Permit, or the Design Review Committee (DRC) but that these cannot be used to
circumvent the zoning process. Rodriguez asked who is on the design review
committee. Klimek responded that the DRC is comprised of land use processionals,
has a staff liaison from the Planning and Development Department, and they are a
public board. Rodriguez asked how this text amendment will modify the approach to
single-family attached and detached dwellings. Klimek responded that the text
amendment cleans-up the single-family attached section of the code by more neatly
sorting out what regulations from three different sections of the ordinance apply when.
Rodriguez asked why it is appropriate to expand the WU Code rather than
incorporating minimum standards such as 75% shade or other aspects off the WU Code
in other zoning districts. Klimek responded that, unlike other existing districts, the WU
Code is mostly self-contained and already includes an effective form-based approach
that the 30+ other zoning districts would struggle to emulate even with substantial
amendments. He added that
Mahrle echoed Vice Chair Bryck’s concerns that there are too many unknowns. He
illustrated this point with the example of a hypothetical development at 44th Street and
Camelback. Why would an owner want to consider the WU Code? How would the City
benefit from the WU Code at that location, is it something the City would impose on a
developer, and what transect would be appropriate and who decides. He concluded by
stating that the city needs to consider potential unintended consequences. He asked
Vice Chair Bryck if he’s encapsulated his concerns. Vice Chair Bryck confirmed that
unintended consequences sum it up and added that the unknowns put a responsibility
on both the developer and on staff to negotiate a transect. Mahrle added that it is
important to look at it from the developer’s perspective and why they would even want
to use the WU Code. He concluded by stating there are too many unknowns for him to
comfortably support it. Klimek thanked both for their comments that that some
scenarios would be helpful to show how some real-world scenarios would play out but
that selecting representative examples is difficult in a city as large as Phoenix.
Vice Chair Bryck stated that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an established
process to allow developers an alternative to traditional zoning. He asked why the
expansion of the WU Code is a better alternative to PUDs. Klimek responded that the
expanded WU Code would put all projects on even footing because they would be
required to comply to the same basic standards which is both easier to administer and
more transparent for residents. In a PUD, a developer can start from scratch and to
cherry pick their development standards which then need to be thoroughly evaluated by
staff for, not only content but also comparability to the base zoning district.
Page 375
Vice Chair Bryck noted that the expansion of the WU Code is identified in the Housing
Phoenix Plan but that he didn’t know if the plan or that recommendation it was built from
public input. He asked when other recommendations from that plan such as ADUs and
revisions to the infill policies will begin to happen. Klimek responded that he believes
the department is working on ADUs but stated that he doesn’t know when that language
would be ready for the VPCs.
George shared that the origin of the WU Code was to promote walkability by doing
away with setbacks and parking, thus allowing more height and intensity in the central
city. All, as a bonus to property owners close to transit including those with vacant land.
It was intended to create a walkable urban environment where transit is available, and it
is all tied to transit which is not existent in parts of our sprawling city. If the WU Code is
applied citywide, the incentive in the central city is removed to build these developments
where they belong, near light rail or BRT. The WU Code was never meant to be
exported to Laveen where residents value their semi-rural lifestyle without any
identifiable transit. They cannot replicate the central city in areas where it was never
meant to be. She concluded by stating that she will be voting no.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Andi Abkarian introduced herself as a downtown resident and a vice chair of
Downtown Voices Coalition (DVC). DVC was developed in response to a need for more
neighborhood focused planning. DVC does support increased density and is looking
forward to the stakeholder input process prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.
One critical element is the local context and the language, as written, relies heavily on
policy interpretation. A benefit of the neighborhood specific TOD Plans such as East
Lake Garfield is that they were generated in conjunction with the WU Code standards
for those areas and the two infill projects presented tonight show the importance of
neighborhood focused planning and development. She stated that this text amendment
appears to be ahead of itself in terms of local planning and policy for development in
those areas. From a personal perspective, she expressed her agreement with Wagner
and Bryck in that villages in the central city need to support the policies and programs
that incentivize density in that core and along light rail. Citing that the Rosewood Homes
applicant indicated they were the first project to do single-family detached under the WU
Code, she indicated that this code should be given room to breathe and evolve before it
is ready to be tested citywide. She concluded by thanking the VPC for their service and
to planning in Phoenix.
Robert Warnicke introduced himself and expressed his opposition to the text
amendment. He read the purpose and intent of Section 13 for the committee which
emphasized the central role of light rail of the WU Code. The WU Code is about
intensity, density, and height in proximity to light rail and offers these bonuses to
support the city’s investment in light rail and the light rail isn’t citywide so the WU Code
shouldn’t be. He added that it is easy to plan WU Code where light rail is going because
it doesn’t happen overnight. He concluded that the expansion is contrary to the original
Page 376
purpose of the WU Code and that it will spread density and more intensity with less
open space and fewer setbacks.
Donna Reiner expressed her agreement with Wagner and Bryck. From the pedestrian’s
perspective, the WU Code has failed miserably because it hasn’t produced the shade
promised and hasn’t made the streets for people on foot. She asked the committee to
vote against the text amendment until the misconception of how to use the WU Code
and its other failings are resolved. She asked why it makes sense to give a bad code to
the rest of the city. Development should not be for the sole benefit of the developer who
will build it and then leave, development should also benefit the entire populace.
STAFF RESPONSE
Klimek responded that the intent of the WU Code was clearly to implement TOD along
the light rail corridor but that, since that time, it has become clear that other areas exist
where it would also be the best tool for the job. The Secondary Core in the North
Mountain Village is Sunnyslope, and this area would have benefitted greatly from the
WU Code. The WU Code would have provided flexibility in exchange for an assurance
of a pedestrian oriented environment with shade and eyes-on-the-street. Unlike other
areas of the city, this district includes many small property owners united under a vision
for walkable urban development but there is no zoning tool better suited for their vision
than the WU Code, but it is unavailable. There are doubtless more places in the city that
would benefit from the expanded eligibility of the WU Code. The text amendment does
not rezone any property, does not gift density to any landowner, and is a prerequisite
step to developing a holistic policy on how the WU Code may be appropriate in different
contexts.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION
Wagner motioned to deny the request. George seconded.
DISCUSSION
Rodriguez stated that she appreciates the public comments who offered their insight on
the matter and that she supports the TOD Districts as they stand. She then thanked
staff for his work.
Vice Chair Bryck thanked staff for the presentation and the candor and that is a tough
job to have to sell something that wasn’t fully baked. He indicated that he would be
open to hearing another proposal if staff works to answer some of the open questions
and concerns and to better flush out the idea.
Chair Kleinman thanked members of the committee for their input and for hanging on for
the entire meeting. He added that of the 15 Villages, Encanto is likely most familiar and
most dedicated to seeing it used in its best interest. He then thanked staff for explaining
the proposed change and for answering difficult questions.
Page 377
VOTE
8-0-0; motion passed with George, Mahrle, Matthews, Procaccini, Rodriguez, Wagner,
Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair Kleinman in support; none in dissent; and none in
abstention.
Page 378
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 19, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Denial
Vote 7-0 Motion passes; with members Barquin, Cartwright,
Danzeisen, Perez, Rush and Sanou and Cardenas in
favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
Three members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU Code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the city.
He discussed elements of the WU Code which prioritize the pedestrian environment
and explained the transect district acronym plus unique development standards.
Examples of what each transect district could look like were provided. This proposal
would allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards
regarding single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal
does not rezone any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does
not modify the applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD
District plans. Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of regulatory
overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An
overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was
provided. Staff recommends approval per Addendum A of the staff report and
discussed the schedule for this case.
Committee member Ademolu left the meeting at 7:15pm, bringing the quorum to 7
members.
Chairman Cardenas asked for committee member questions. He then asked for public
comments on this case.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 379
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, stated that this text amendment is better suited
for TOD areas. He discussed shading elements and parking reductions that would be
applicably citywide if this case is approved. Other Village Planning Committees have
heard this case and denied the request. Homeowners are left wondering where
development will happen and will have to battle each project with an applicant’s
attorney regarding the density. No opportunities for citizen input were available and
there is a lack of public participation. He asked the committee to deny the request.
Ryan Boyd, member of the public, supports this text amendment which will allow WU
Code as an option citywide. Public input will be provided throughout the process and
the VPC’s will have the ability to hear each WU Code case within their villages. This
allows for a wide range of housing options and a mix of uses throughout the city.
Neal Haddad, member of the public, stated that this text amendment case is putting
the cart before the horse, as the concept does not work without having a transect map.
A vision document that incorporates citizen input is needed for this vision. This case
has a generational impact, and VPC members should not be forced into deciding.
Other VPC’s have denied this request and requests that this committee also vote to
deny this case.
Mr. Bojórquez summarized the text amendment request. He added that staff would
recommend approval per Addendum A of the staff report, but if the committee has
concerns with allowing WU Code citywide, the committee could consider limiting the
boundaries to Village Cores and along mass-transit corridors. He showed a map of
TOD communities in Phoenix and Village Cores citywide.
Lisa Perez appreciates the information, but other alternatives for this text amendment
need to be provided ahead of the meeting for further analysis.
Dan Rush added that he would be open to reconsidering the request if new
information is provided all VPC’s ahead of the meeting.
MOTION:
Ms. Perez motioned to deny case Z-TA-3-19. Mr. Rush seconded the motion to deny.
VOTE:
7-0, motion passed; Members Barquin, Cartwright, Danzeisen, Perez, Rush, Sanou
and Cardenas in favor; None in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 380
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 11, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Approval with a modification to only allow expansion to
high-capacity transit corridors and Village Cores.
Vote 8-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, explained that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
rezone to WU Code. She explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and
update standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process. She then discussed the revisions in Addendum
A, which include the applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and
Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. She also clarified that WU Code would not
eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans. She reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
Francisco Barraza asked if this proposal will change how developments are
constructed along transit and light rail lines. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code is
already applicable along the existing light rail corridors where Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Policy Plans exist. Properties in these areas are already eligible to
request to be rezoned to WU Code.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 381
Stephanie Hurd expressed concern with the application of the WU Code outside of
transit areas and asked if the committee would still have the same opportunity to
request specific improvements via stipulations as with any other rezoning case.
Mastikhina explained that any request for WU Code zoning will require a full rezoning
process, including all associated public hearings where committee members can
request to add stipulations to the entitlement case.
Chair Tonya Glass asked if the WU Code acts as a density bonus. Mastikhina
explained that the WU Code does not have density caps and is focused more on how
sites and buildings are designed and how they interact the pedestrian environment,
rather than the uses inside the buildings. She noted that development standards such
as lot coverage, setbacks and height maximums automatically limit how many dwelling
units can fit in a development. Chair Glass expressed concern with essentially giving
developers a density bonus, with the enforceability of WU Code, and how WU Code
would impact Laveen, which is very far away from the light rail. She also stated that WU
Code may have come too late for Laveen, since there are already so many properties
zoned for multifamily residential and there aren’t many opportunities left to implement
this code. She further expressed concern with the lack of vetting of this proposal and
how it will impact communities such as Laveen and Anthem, which do not have major
transit corridors like more central parts of the city.
Hurd pondered if this is something that can be applied to certain areas of Laveen, and if
it would bring any benefits. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code contains several
transect districts with a range of urban intensities, and that most are of a mixed-use
nature. She pointed out that the committee has raised concerns over the past few
months with other cases at the lack of mixed-use developments that bring economic
prosperity and retail options to Laveen. The WU Code is mixed-use by nature, and
many of the transect district allow for a wide range of land uses, meaning that properties
zoned WU Code would have the flexibility to expand uses as the market allows, which
could be beneficial to the community.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bramley Paulin stated that the WU Code was specifically designed for properties along
the light rail and its standards encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units,
and reduction of parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city
and that it was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack
on established single-family residential neighborhoods.
Dan Penton asked if the village can stipulate on WU Code cases, if the WU Code
allows for smaller lot sizes in single-family subdivisions, how it specifically promotes
walkability, and how it could help Laveen preserve its rural character and sense of
place. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code does not set forth minimum lot widths,
but that the committee could stipulate to a minimum width much like any other single-
family rezoning case. She also stated that the WU Code addresses walkability by
setting forth required standards for things like enhanced shading for pedestrian
pathways and public open spaces, building frontages that activate the pedestrian realm
such as patios, stoops, and storefronts, wider sidewalks that are detached from
vehicular drives, and a mix of uses on every site. Penton asked how this can be
implemented in Laveen to create enhanced built environments such as the Kierland
Commons in northeast Phoenix. Mastikhina replied that the Kierland Commons was
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 382
achieved via a PUD that mostly followed WU Code standards, and that the entire
purpose of the WU Code is to achieve pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use developments.
Penton asked if a development in a Village Core that is zoned WU Code can limit the
number of vehicles and parking on the site to help create a more pedestrian-friendly
environment. Mastikhina replied that parking reductions are possible in the WU Code,
and that the extent to which they are granted depend on proximity to light rail stations.
She explained that each request for rezoning and parking reductions would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, stating that a development located in the outer
reaches of the city limits where transit options don’t exist would not be a good candidate
for parking reductions. Properties in urban cores and centers, however, can receive
parking reductions of almost 100 percent, depending on how many transit options are
available in close proximity.
Chair Glass stated that she understands the benefits of this code, but that most of the
areas that would benefit most from it are already eligible, as they are along the light rail.
Hurd agreed that Laveen can benefit from the walkability and shading and stated that
the committee can stipulate to ensure developments are still compatible with the area.
However, she wants to hear what other committee members have to say.
Vice Chair Linda Abegg expressed her concern with what the community is giving up
to allow for all the extra density, noting that developers will not subject themselves to all
of these enhanced standards if they’re not getting significant flexibility out of it. She
stated that she prefers the PUD tool to achieve the same standards but still be able to
limit the density of a project.
Carlos Ortega asked for clarification on the applicability of this amendment, and if will
only apply to where transit currently exists or will exist in the future. Vice Chair Abegg
explained that the text amendment would allow the WU Code to be applied anywhere in
the city, not just along transit lines.
MOTION
Chair Glass made a motion to approve the text amendment with a modification to only
allow it along high-capacity transit corridors. Vice Chair Abegg asked to amend the
motion to also include Village Cores. Chair Glass accepted the amendment. Barraza
seconded the motion.
VOTE
8-0: Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Barraza, Buggs, Hurd,
Knight, Ortega, and Rouse in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 383
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 13, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts and administrative temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Approval per Addendum A
VPC Vote 6-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
One request to speak in opposition was made for this request. Committee members
Demarest and Hernandez left during this item, bringing quorum to 8.
Sarah Stockham, staff, provided a summary of the request involving the expansion of
the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting the existing boundaries where
WU code is available today, and the need for this text amendment given the expansion
of mass-transit to other parts of the city. Ms. Stockham added that this proposal would
allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding
single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas, this proposal does not rezone
any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the
applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Ms.
Stockham explained that Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of
regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit
fees. An overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts
was provided, and staff concluded with their recommendation of approval per
Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the hearing schedule for this case.
Questions from the Committee:
Saundra Cole asked for a brief overview of the WU Code and if it would allow
commercial uses. Ms. Stockham briefly explained that the Walkable Urban Code is a
formed based code within the Zoning Ordinance, and that zoning districts are named
transects which relates to the amount of uses and intensity they allow, and that there
are more design requirements and more requirements for shade, sidewalks, and bicycle
parking than what is found in conventional zoning districts. Ms. Stockham confirmed
that most transects allow both commercial and residential uses.
Sandra Oviedo asked what benefits this brings to Maryvale. Ms. Stockham highlighted
the increased shade, bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities that are required with
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 384
WU Code projects, adding that it is a form-based code so there are frontage and glazing
requirements to activate the street frontage, and added that Maryvale is going to receive
significant transit infrastructure investment with the light rail extension and the bus rapid
transit line, and that the Maryvale Village Core Plan is a transit-oriented development
policy plan that recommends many of the requirements in the WU Code.
Chair Gene Derie asked for clarification on the current geographic restrictions of the
WU Code. Ms. Stockham replied that applicants can choose to rezone to the WU Code
if they are within the five TOD policy plan areas along the existing light rail line but
applicants along planned light rail lines, like the 10West extension in Maryvale, do not
have that option.
Public Comment:
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that the WU Code
was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards encourage
reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He stated that
this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever created for this
purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-family residential
neighborhoods and encouraged the committee to deny this request.
Staff Response:
Ms. Stockham reiterated staff’s recommendation, that this request is to expand the
option to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, it does not rezone properties
outright and that the process for evaluating and analyzing the appropriateness of
rezoning requests is comprehensive.
Motion:
Ken DuBose motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A. Mike
Weber seconded the motion.
Vote:
6-2, motion to approve Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A passes with Committee Members
Battle, Cole, DuBose, Oviedo, Valenzuela and Weber in favor and committee members
Garcia and Derie opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 385
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 14, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code. She stated that removing geographic restrictions on WU Code will
support the City’s growing number of TOD areas.
Julianna Pierre explained how transect districts function in WU Code and how each
transect has unique standards for building height, frontage, setbacks, lot coverage, and
land uses. She also provided examples of product types built within each transect.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will allow property owners to apply
to rezoned to WU Code and update standards regarding single family attached
residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment
will not automatically rezone any property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the applicability
of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees.
She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts,
Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and scale,
such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 386
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
Neal Haddad, a member off the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, stated that
the text amendment needs precise documentation for each village along with transect
maps. He stated that transect maps would clarify which transects are appropriate in
specific locations. He added that the current text amendment process lacked public
input.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that WU Code was not intended to be
implemented citywide. He stated that the text amendment does not prohibit developers
from requesting high density or increased height. He stated that the increased density
will cause additional traffic and eliminate established single-family neighborhoods.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon asked why the boundaries of the WU code were being
pushed citywide rather than remaining close to transit. Julianna Pierre explained that
WU Code allows for product types that prioritize the pedestrian environment and create
walkable spaces. Vice Chair Shannon Simon stated that she could imagine WU Code
in Village cores, but noted concern with it being permitted citywide. Julianna Pierre
stated that there is an option to approve the text amendment with modifications to
restrict the applicability to Village Cores or along transit lines.
Committee member Julie Read stated that the text amendment did not seem
applicable to the North Gateway Village. She added that she was hesitant to approve a
text amendment that would make changes for the entire City when a majority of other
Village Planning Committees (VPC) voted for denial.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development Department,
reiterated that the WU Code text amendment will not rezone any properties. He added
that are already high density options available in the zoning ordinance, but WU Code
will allow for the opportunity to maximize current and future transit investments.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon stated that she’s supportive of limiting WU Code to
specific areas, but there would need to be clear parameters. She stated that it could be
detrimental to open the door to having high density in residential areas.
Bramley Paulin stated that the main issue with the text amendment is that it lacks
specificity. He added that the City should have gone out to the public for not only input,
but also to educate them about the specifics of WU Code. He reiterated that he is
concerned about the impact that the text amendment will have on existing
neighborhoods.
Larry Whitesell, a member of the public, stated that WU Code was originally intended
for mass transit corridors, Village cores, and emerging centers. He added that WU
Code is not appropriate throughout the entirety of the City. He stated that a transect
map could help to establish guidelines for where density would be located.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 387
Committee member Steve Tucker asked what issues could expanding the WU Code
boundaries resolve. Joshua Bednarek stated that WU Code would make development
more walkable in appropriate areas and combat challenges of heat, housing, and traffic.
He added that the test amendment would only allow WU Code to be an available
rezoning option throughout the City.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon asked for clarification regarding the transect maps.
Joshua Bednarek stated the City’s General Plan Land Use Map works as a transect
map and can be looked to for density expectations. He added that any rezoning cases
requesting WU Code would be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Neal Haddad, stated that WU Code could not be applied without specificity and would
not work in a piecemeal fashion. He stated that applicants could utilize the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) option if they wanted to use WU Code standards outside of
the current WU Code boundaries.
Joshua Bednarek stated that the Z-TA-3-19 would also prevent the need for future text
amendment if the City’s transit-oriented areas were expanded.
Committee member Julie Read stated that she appreciated hearing the current
conversation regarding the proposed text amendment, but felt it would be better to
reconsider the item when it had been reworked and addressed community concerns.
MOTION: Committee member Michelle Ricart made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19.
The motion was seconded by Committee member Julie Read.
VOTE: 4-0 with Committee members Simon, Read, Ricart, and Tucker in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 388
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 20, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Approve
VPC Vote 11-2-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
Six speaker cards were received on this item with all wishing to speak including three in
support, one in neutrality, and two in opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July and to the Encanto VPC at the July
12th meeting. The input received from the informational sessions was studied and the
staff recommendation was revised in Addendum A which is now before the committee
for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half mile
from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s form-based
approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors, such as village cores
and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes geographic constraints and
would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU Code city-wide. The request does
not rezone any property, modify any process, or modify any existing policy plan or
standard. The language proposed in Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to
clarify how the WU Code will interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in different
contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on trees, shade, and
human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU Code expansion would
proliferate high-density development throughout the city but explained that this is a
misconception because there are existing zoning tools that allow high density
development in areas where the WU Code is not currently an option, including Planned
Unit Developments. While certain WU Code Transects allow for high density, these
Page 389
transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented requirements that are not required in alternative
high-density options. The rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two
meetings with staff, one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused
on determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by stating
that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear before the
Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Veidmark thanked Klimek for sending the presentation in advance of the meeting and
stated that it was very helpful to understand the complex issue.
Argiro agreed with Veidmark and thanked Klimek. He asked Klimek to clarify if the text
amendment would rezone any property. Klimek responded that the text amendment
does not rezone any property.
McBride asked if the intent of this text amendment is to put another zoning option on
the menu, if it changes any processes to make density easier to access, and if
recommendations and decisions would still involve the professional expertise of staff,
neighborhood engagement, and the public hearing bodies. Klimek responded that the
text amendment provides another zoning tool, does not change any process, and run
through the same process as any other zoning case, including public engagement
requirements.
Perez asked how many meetings a developer is required to have with the community
and if there are requirements for bilingual outreach. Klimek responded that all rezoning
cases require the applicant to contact all properties owners within 600’ and all
registered neighborhood groups within 1 mile to inform and to invite them to their
required neighborhood meeting. All applicants must hold one neighborhood meeting
followed by three public hearings. The notifications are required in English only but that
often, depending on the specific context of the area, that staff will recommend bilingual
or enhanced outreach. Perez thanked Klimek and stated that enhanced outreach
requirements should be explored.
Jaramillo asked that, if the text amendment is granted, that there would be nothing to
prevent an applicant from requesting the WU Code for a high-density project in the
middle of a single-family neighborhood. Klimek responded that there is nothing to
prevent an applicant from asking but that won’t be an issue new to the WU Code.
Today, an applicant could request a traditional district for high-density development in
an established neighborhood, but he concluded by explaining that the staff analysis and
the public processes have withstood such requests effectively for many years and these
processes remain unchanged.
Page 390
Sommacampagna asked for the outcomes from the other villages that have heard the
request. Klimek responded that he did not have an exact count but explained that it has
been mixed with each committee applying their unique perspectives to the request.
Some have been supportive because it is another tool to be applied where appropriate.
Some have been conditionally supportive recommending approving subject to
geographic restrictions. Some have been concerned due to uncertainty of how the code
will be rolled out.
Barraza asked if it is possible to stipulate the elements from the WU Code into existing
zones. Klimek responded that in some areas of the city where WU Code isn’t available
such as 19North, that staff has been stipulating elements from the WU Code but that
there are some items that are in conflict. For example, traditional zones require a
minimum building setback to push development away from the public street but the WU
Code requires a minimum build-to line to establish a pedestrian orientation to the public
sidewalk environment. He concluded by sharing that, in such instances, the regulatory
mechanisms of the codes can be in conflict.
McBride asked if the WU Code TA would give any power to a developer requesting to
build something adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. She asked if the request
would still need to go through staff and community input processes to determine
whether the proposal is appropriate to the context of the area. She then asked that, just
because an applicant requests something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be granted.
Klimek confirmed that the TA expands the eligibility of the WU Code but doesn’t
change any process. The rezoning process for WU Code or other districts is still going
to be 6 months with staff, the community, and recommending bodies and council.
Argiro asked what protections exist to keep inappropriate development from taking
hold. McBride responded that there is a plan for the city that doesn’t allow a high-rise to
be located next to a cottage and that staff and the establish public processes exists to
further evaluate projects. Argiro asked Klimek if the code contains further detail on
what the different transect are intended to create. Klimek responded that Chapter 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance contains the WU Code and that it depicts a series of
illustrations to depict the different types of “frontage types” required in different transects
such a porches, patios, common entries, and forecourts.
Barraza asked if the WU Code could be used to make a project more compatible with
its surroundings. Klimek responded that a form-based code such as the WU Code is
intended to allow for more design discretion to promote compatibility with its contexts,
compared to traditional zoning districts that prescribe standards more rigidly. He then
raised to examples from the Encanto Village which proposed single-family attached
subdivisions located in established neighborhoods; the WU Code allowed for a
traditional density in a form that made sense in their established neighborhoods while
also allowing for more collaborative conversations with the neighborhood.
Chair Krentz asked if this form-based approach has been used in other cities. Klimek
responded that many communities have adopted a form-based code as an additional
Page 391
option and that others have entirely replaced their traditional code in favor of form-
based regulations. These communities have determined that their traditional codes
have not been producing the broader outcomes they desired, such as walkability and
form-based codes can be more directly aligned with greater outcomes desired. He
concluded by sharing that the TA would add the WU Code as a small part of the menu
of zoning options in Phoenix.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ryan Boyd (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as being with the
Urban Phoenix Project and thanked the members for their great discussion. He
expressed that this TA is about options and that the Village, Planning Commission, and
based on appropriateness. He added that one of the reasons he supports to TA is
because of the Housing Phoenix Plan and its dire need for additional housing,
especially in small forms such as duplexes and multifamily which is best handled
through a form-based code. He added that the lowest intensity transects actually permit
a fairly suburban form of development and even for low density redevelopment, an
applicant would still need to navigate the 6 month rezoning process.
Sebastean Losch (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as a member of
Trillium, a local development group that’s based in the 19North Corridor. The WU Code
takes a thoughtful approach to its interaction with the adjacent street but also with
adjacent land uses. He concluded by thanking the audience and by stating that, Ken
Losch, who had registered to speak in support was not able to attend the meeting.
Bramley Paulin (registered neutral of the item) stated that the WU Code was
specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards encourage
reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He stated that
this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever created for this
purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-family residential
neighborhoods and that this is part of the city’s effort to add 50,000 dwelling units
throughout the city, including in established neighborhoods. He concluded by sharing
that 8 of the 12 VPCs that have heard the TA have recommended denial.
Larry Whitesell (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as the Co-Chair of
the Peak Neighborhood Association and explained that his concern is that this puts the
cart before the horse. Prior to the WU Code being allowed city-wide, there needs to be
a new type of General Plan Map that prescribes where each transect is appropriate.
Because no guidance exists, there will be no starting point for developers considering
an application. He concluded by stating that the city should not take on a major change
in the zoning ordinance if they don't have the resources to do it completely incorrectly.
Neal Haddad (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as being from the
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix and expressed his agreement with Mr.
Paulin and Mr. Whitesell. The WU Code only makes sense when transit is present and,
in Phoenix that area is limited so, he asked why does it make sense to expand a transit-
Page 392
oriented code to govern land that is not walkable and served by transit. He added that
the Congress for New Urbanism has stated that a form-based code should be
accompanied by a transect map that has been developed with public input to guide
density to where it belongs. At this stage, there are no standards or vision for how the
code will be applied.
STAFF RESPONSE
Klimek, staff, thanked the public speakers for their comments and input. He provided a
series of closing remarks. The WU Code was written to create high-quality and
pedestrian oriented development along the light rail but that, like any effective tool, the
WU Code was discovered to be the best tool for additional areas of the city. He stated
that the text amendment is pre-requisite to develop policy for how the code may be
most effectively deployed outside of light rail corridors because those conversations
would have been hypothetical without the ability to use it. The intent of this text
amendment is not to replace traditional zoning but instead to allow the flexibility to use it
where appropriate in areas such as village cores. The city has longed planned for
intensity in its village cores and, that level of policy guidance would be used to support
intensity whether through the WU Code or a traditional district and that this text
amendment does not support density anywhere and everywhere.
McBride asked again for confirmation that the TA does not rezone any property and
would only be allowed as an option where appropriate. Klimek confirmed that the TA
does not rezone property, does not modify any existing process, and that those
processes are intended to determine appropriateness. McBride concluded by stating
that she’s worked extensively with the Planning and Development Department on
zoning and development processes and found all representatives to be thoughtful and
diligent in their support of good development in appropriate locations. She added that it
isn’t up to the developer to determine appropriateness, it is up to staff, the community,
and the recommending bodies.
O’Connor asked if there is a minimum size threshold for the WU Code because, in his
experience, only areas of a certain magnitude can create walkability by creating multiple
complementary uses to attract and retain individuals. Klimek responded that the
walkability can be achieved at two scales. In large projects where they can create a
gravity onto themselves as described by Member O’Connor. But, also in smaller
projects that may exist at the periphery of an existing district or at an infill location where
a form-based approach allows a small project to contribute to the overall walkability of
the areas. An example of a large project is the redevelopment at Park Central Mall and
examples of small projects are the two infill subdivisions described earlier in the
discussion.
Vice Chair Jaramillo asked how a transect map would look compared to the city’s
existing General Plan Land Use Maps. Klimek responded that the existing General
Plan Map provides guidance on land use and intensity for every parcel in the city, such
as “residential 10-15 dwelling units per acre.” A transect map would also touch every
property, or every property where it can apply, and would prescribe what transect or
Page 393
transects would be appropriate and exactly where. If the city were transitioning entirely
to a transect based development ordinance, a transect based land use map would be
prudent. However, the TA proposes the WU Code as a small part of all zoning tools and
therefore a new map is not required.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION:
McBride motioned to approve the require per the staff recommendation contained in
Addendum A. Sommacampagna seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Alauria stated that she will be abstaining because she does not feel the committee has
enough information.
Argiro stated that he would be more inclined to support the request if it were restricted
geographically but indicated the limited amount of information makes him nervous. He
stated that he will be voting no.
Chair Krentz asked staff if the committee could make a motion that includes a
geographic restriction to, for example, village cores, urban centers, and transit corridors.
Klimek responded that, if so inclined, the committee can recommend approval with
specific geographic restrictions, but he noted that there is presently a motion on the
floor with a second so that motion would need to be rescinded or voluntarily withdrawn.
Barraza stated that the existing processes offer sufficient protections through staff
review, public input, and public hearings and will therefore support the motion.
Perez thanked her colleagues and the public speakers for adding depth to the
conversation.
VOTE: 11-2-2, motion passes with, Barraza, Carrell, Larson, McBride, , O'Hara, Perez,
Sommacampagna, Steinmetz, Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Krentz in favor; Argiro,
and Vice Chair Jaramillo in dissent; Alauria and O'Connor in abstention.
Page 394
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 4, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 16-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the WU Code came to fruition in the first place. He went over
what this Text Amendment request would update to include the expansion on
the WU Code boundaries, amendment of the zoning fee schedule, and minimum
acreage limitations for Charter Schools. Mr. Simmons elaborated on why
expanding the WU-Code boundaries would help the growth of the City of
Phoenix. He shared that it would support the Housing Phoenix Plan, it would
promote pedestrian oriented design and set no limit on dwelling unit density.
Further, Mr. Simmons shared that the Kierland area has largely redeveloped
through PUD rezoning requests, which utilize WU-Code standards in the PUD
narratives. Mr. Simmons also went over WU-Code design standards, which
focus on design rather than land use, a form based code. Mr. Simmons shared
the hearing schedule with the committee, stating that this will come back in front
of them for recommendation in the near term.
VPC Response:
Mr. Roy Wise asked staff what the advantages are for this request.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, explained to the committee that future prospective
applicants will be able to consider opting for WU Code rather than a PUD
request as the development standards are similar. PUD cases often utilize WU
Code standards. He explained that WU Code requests do not require an
applicant to host two neighborhood meetings or go to Village twice prior to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 395
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
October 04, 2021
Page 2
moving forward to Planning Commission and City Council like the PUD
requirements mandate.
MOTION:
Mr. Robert Goodhue made a motion to recommend approval of Text
Amendment Case No. Z-TA-3-19, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Alex Popovic seconded the motion.
VOTE:
16-0 with committee members Balderrama, Bowman, DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Ward,
Wise, Lesher and Gubser in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 396
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 12, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 3-2
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will remove geographic restrictions
on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update
standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the applicability
of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees.
She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts,
Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and scale,
such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input. She also provided examples of low-density
products that were developed under WU Code zoning.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 397
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked about how WU Code would be implemented.
Julianna Pierre explained that applicants would request a WU Code transect and
would have to go through the standard rezoning process. She explained that during the
rezoning process, staff would evaluate whether the requested transect is appropriate.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked to explain form-based code and how it is
different from traditional zoning. Julianna Pierre explained that form-based code is
focused on design while traditional zoning is more focused on land use standards. She
stated that form-based code can give greater diversity in housing options and WU
Code, specifically, prioritizes the pedestrian environment.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he had concerns about transects
and how they would be implemented throughout the City. He stated that there is no
certainty as to where high density would be requested and it could be built directly
adjacent to single-family neighborhoods.
Larry Whitesell, a member of the public, stated that WU Code would allow 0-foot
setbacks, increased density, and increased height where it does not belong. He stated
that WU Code is not applicable citywide. He added that the text amendment should, at
least, be accompanied with transect maps.
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification regarding regulatory standards.
Julianna Pierre stated that regulatory standards in specified zoning districts, regulatory
standards and plans would prevail over WU Code. Committee member Chris
Gonzalez stated that he had concerns not knowing all the specific conflicts that could
arise between WU Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and other regulatory plans.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he had concerns with the lack of public
input and the text amendment possibly allowing additional leeway for developers. He
added that the text amendment may not be needed in the Rio Vista Village.
Julianna Pierre asked if the VPC felt that the text amendment was applicable to
specific geographic areas, such as Village Cores or along transit lines. Vice Chair
Steven Scharboneau expressed concerns since the current Rio Vista Village Core is
not located where it should be in the Village. Julianna Pierre and the committee
members discussed possible language that could be used if the text amendment was
approved with a modification restricting application to specific geographic areas.
MOTION: Committee member Ozzie Virgil made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19. The
motion was seconded by Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau.
VOTE: 3-2 with Committee members Scharboneau, Virgil, and Gonzalez in favor and
Committee members Sommacampagna and Lawrence in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 398
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Denial
Vote 5-4-1; Members Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Smith and
Marchuk in favor; Members Brooks, Muhammad, Viera
and Daniels in dissent; Member Aldama abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the
city. The various WU Code Transects were explained, providing examples of low,
medium and high-intensity transects. This proposal would allow property owners to
rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding single-family attached
standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal does not rezone any property, does
not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the applicability or
standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Addendum A of
the staff report revises applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus
adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An overview of existing zoning
tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was provided. Staff recommends
approval per Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the schedule for this
case.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• What is the enforceability with the process for this text amendment?
• How will deviations from WU Code standards be enforced?
• How will the city enforce standards in the WU Code?
Page 399
Mr. Bojórquez responded that cases seeking to rezone to WU Code would follow
the same process as any other rezoning case. Proposals to deviate from the WU
Code standards would require a variance, which undergoes a separate public
hearing process from a rezoning case. The city would enforce the standards in the
WU Code just like it would enforce any other standards in another rezoning case,
as required by the Zoning Ordinance or adopted Ordinance.
Vice Chair Marchuk is pleased with the changes made to the original proposal, but
still believes that some areas of the Village are not walkable. He asked if there is a
“Walk Score” or General Plan component to the Walkable Urban Code. Mr.
Bojórquez discussed the proposal and the analysis process that cases seeking
rezoning undergo. The WU Code would be an option citywide as currently
proposed.
Marcia Busching has had lots of conversations regarding this request and
appreciates Addendum A of the staff report to help clarify some of the conflicts. She
has two major concerns regarding the request that pertain to the applicability of WU
Code citywide and also that there is nothing walkable about this. She asked how
many Village Planning Committee’s had heard this text amendment case. Mr.
Bojórquez responded that only a few VPC’s had heard this case so far, and the
recommendations varied.
Muriel Smith agrees with Ms. Busching and feels that this is best suited to areas in
Downtown Phoenix. The committee could look at this proposal another time in the
future.
Mr. Brownell is a fan of the WU Code, but feels that these efforts are missing
something important.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Mr. Brownell and has concerns about the
execution or implementation of this code.
Chairwoman Daniels likes the WU Code overall and added that other cities are
using something similar. She talked about the benefits that the WU Code would
bring to parts of the South Mountain Village, especially between 7th Avenue to 7th
Street. She discussed density and character, adding that we are planning for the
future 20 to 30 years out. She then asked for public comment on this case.
Neal Haddad, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that he is
opposed to this proposal. The WU Code only works where transit is present, not
citywide as there is a need for a transect map. He discussed issues with the
existing bus network, adding that there is no vision document to help with the
desired results. The WU Code gives height and density in addition to a parking
waiver. Village Planning Committees do not understand this text amendment.
Page 400
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and has concerns with
this text amendment case. No public input has been obtained whatsoever and has
concerns with the proposed height and density standards associated with WU
Code. He has process-related concerns, cited issues for single-family and rural
neighborhoods. He encourages the committee to deny this request.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if a subcommittee could be formed to discuss this text
amendment request. Mr. Bojórquez responded that forming a subcommittee was
not possible at this time due to the limitations provided at the last meeting by staff.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if a continuance for this case would be possible. Mr.
Bojórquez responded that staff would prefer to maintain the current schedule as all
VPC’s are expected to provide a recommendation this month before the case goes
to Planning Commission in early November.
Fatima Muhammad Roque asked if staff would repeat some of the possible
geographic boundaries where WU Code could be restricted to.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the committee could limit the applicability of WU
Code to Village Cores or along mass-transit corridors, among other possible
boundary restrictions.
Ms. Busching has concerns with approving this case with more defined geographic
boundaries without additional time to analyze these boundaries. Mr. Bojórquez
provided an overview of the request and added that the committee has the ability to
add more defined geographic boundaries if this would alleviate some of the
concerns voiced during the meeting.
MOTION:
Ms. Shepard motioned to deny case Z-TA-3-19. Ms. Busching seconded the
motion to deny.
DISCUSSION:
George Brooks prefers to continue this case to a future meeting. Mr. Brownell
agrees with Ms. Bushing’s comments. Vice Chair Marchuk added that additional
time to analyze any changes would be helpful.
VOTE:
5-4-1, motion passed; Members Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Smith and
Marchuk in favor; Members Brooks, Muhammad, Viera and Daniels in dissent;
Member Aldama abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 401
$WWDFKPHQW*
ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
(Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule Update)
December 3, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative
Bodies), Chapter 5 (Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable
Urban Code) of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide,
including updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and
procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend
the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown
Code-Character Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
The purpose of this Addendum is to address revisions to the recommended text in
Exhibit A. Below is a summary of the proposed revisions to the text amendment which
are also denoted as underlined text in Exhibit A.
1. Section 1301.C
New language is proposed to modify the Walkable Urban (WU) Code’s
applicability provision to allow the WU Code to apply to land uses, subdivisions,
and development within approved Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District
Boundaries as depicted on the Transit Oriented Communities Map (Exhibits A
and B).
During the Village Planning Committee (VPC) meetings, staff heard various
concerns regarding the proposed revisions in the Addendum A Staff Report to
expand WU Code applicability citywide. These concerns are summarized as
follows:
x Concerns regarding the compatibility of WU Code development
standards and design guidelines with established neighborhoods.
x Concerns regarding implementing the proposal without transect maps
for impacted properties.
x Preferences to limit WU Code applicability to major transit corridors,
bus rapid-transit corridors, light rail corridors, TOD districts, and/or
Village Cores.
Page 402
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Two VPCs recommended approval with a modification to limit the proposed
expansion of WU Code applicability to either high-capacity transit corridors
(Ahwatukee Foothills) or high-capacity transit corridors and Village Cores
(Laveen).
The proposed revision addresses many of these concerns by limiting applicability
of the WU Code to the Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas and within
approved TOD district boundaries. The existing Ordinance language already
permits WU Code development in the Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas
and there is no change to this existing provision. The five existing Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plans are Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown,
and Solano.
New proposed language regarding approved TOD district boundaries would
expand applicability of the WU Code to the 19North, 50th Street Station Area,
Capitol Extension, I-10 West Extension, Northwest Extension Phase II, and
South Central TOD districts. These six TOD districts have defined geography
documented in Phoenix City Council adopted policy plans (19 North), Federal
Transit Administration planning grants (Capitol Extension, I-10 West Extension,
Northwest Extension Phase II, and South Central), or are located within close
proximity to an existing Valley Metro Rail station (50th Street Station Area).
Expanding applicability of the WU Code to these TOD districts is consistent with
the City’s significant planning and investment in public transit within these areas.
The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Ahwatukee
Foothills and Laveen Village Planning Committees and responsive to concerns
raised in other VPC meetings.
The proposed revision includes a new map titled the “Transit Oriented
Communities Map” which depicts the boundaries of the five existing Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas and the six additional TOD districts as described
above. This map is included in the revised text (Exhibits A and B) to confirm the
proposed WU Code applicability area. Expansion of WU Code applicability
outside the areas depicted on this map would require a future text amendment to
this map and/or related text.
2. Section 1306.H.1.b
One minor revision is proposed to this section regarding use permit requirements
for interim vacant lot activation. Given the proposed revision to Section 1301.C it
is appropriate to permit property owners within areas depicted on the Transit
Oriented Communities Map, who do not meet the geographic restrictions outlined
in Section 1306.H.1, an opportunity to apply for a use permit for interim vacant lot
activation. This modification is consistent with the proposed expansion of WU
Code applicability and with the current process for properties within the
boundaries of the existing Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas.
Page 403
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
3. Section 1311.A.1
One minor revision is proposed to this section regarding general design
development considerations to remove references to the names of the Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas. This revision is solely to clarify that the stated
goal of encouraging walking and bicycling should apply to any property
designated with WU Code zoning.
4. Section 1313.D.3.a
One minor revision is proposed to this section to delete the Transit Oriented
Development Districts Map. This graphic is not referred to in Section 1313 and is
not referenced in any other Zoning Ordinance section. This map is unnecessary,
outdated, and conflicts with the Transit Oriented Communities Map proposed to
be added to Section 1301.C.
Transit Oriented Communities Map: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit B is a copy
of the Transit Oriented Communities Map which is depicted in Exhibit A – Proposed
Language in Section 1301.C.
Village Planning Committee meeting results: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit C
is a summary of the results of the Village Planning Committee meetings regarding the
proposal.
Correspondence: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit D are four pieces of
correspondence received by staff since the approval of the Addendum A Staff Report.
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Proposed Language (9 pages)
Exhibit B: Transit Oriented Communities Map (1 page)
Exhibit C: Village Planning Committee meeting results summary (3 Pages)
Exhibit D: Correspondence (5 pages)
Page 404
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule
Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Page 405
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Page 406
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
Page 407
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
Page 408
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
Page 409
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Page 410
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1306.H.1.b to read as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the
Transit District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Page 411
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Section 1311.A.1 (General Considerations) to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit
services, TRANSIT ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS:
***
Amend Section 1313.D.3.a to remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
Page 412
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
Page 413
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
Page 414
(;+,%,7%
7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG&RPPXQLWLHV
Light Rail Stops
Light Rail
TOD Boundaries
ACOMA DR
Downtown Code
THUNDERBIRD RD
SWEETWATER AVE
TATUM BLVD
12TH ST
RD
CACTUS RD
CR
19TH AVE
23RD AVE
15TH AVE
EE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
CHOLLA ST K
21ST AVE
CA
VE
7TH ST
PEORIA AVE SHEA BLVD
Northwest
CHERYL DR Extension
Phase II FANFOL DR
HATCHER RD
DUNLAP AVE
BUTLER DR 18TH ST
NORTHERN AVE §
¦
¨
ORANGEWOOD AVE
19North
GLENDALE AVE
LIN
MARYLAND AVE CO
LN
DR
ROVEY AVE
7TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
£
¤
Solano CAMELBACK RD
Uptown HIGHLAND AVE
CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL AVE
G
RA
23RD AVE 19TH AVE 15TH AVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 20TH ST 24TH ST 28TH ST 32ND ST 36TH ST 40TH ST 44TH ST 48TH ST
N
INDIAN SCHOOL RD D
AV
E
OSBORN RD
I-10 West THOMAS RD £
¤
Extension Midtown
OAK ST
Capitol Eastlake
Extension Garfield Gateway
MCDOWELL RD
50th Street
§
¨
¦
w
v
Station Area
CAP/I-10
Phase 1
Downtown £
¤143
WASHINGTON ST
39TH AVE 31ST AVE 27TH AVE
JEFFERSON ST
35TH AVE
GRANT ST
SKY HARBOR BLVD
£
¤
BUCKEYE RD
MOHAVE ST
WATKINS ST OLD TOWER RD
LOWER BUCKEYE RD UNIVERSITY DR
ELWOOD ST
BROADWAY RD
15TH AVE
ROESER RD
South Central
SOUTHERN AVE
59TH AVE 51ST AVE 47TH AVE 43RD AVE 10TH ST 12TH ST 16TH ST 20TH ST 24TH ST 28TH ST 32ND ST 36TH ST 40TH ST 44TH ST
VINEYARD RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
7TH ST
DOBBINS RD
OLNEY AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
\\pdss01gis\GIS\Projects\TOD_Area_Maps_Joel\MXD\Ordinance_TOD_Areas.mxd
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Page 415
N
EXHIBIT &
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/26/2021 (No quorum) Concerns with not having sufficient time to 10/25/2021 Approval with a 6-4-1 Concerns with allowing TA citywide and
8/23/2021 (No quorum) review the information. General questions modification to expand only concerns with allowing TA in Village Cores as
9/27/2021 about what this TA does. Would like to review to high capacity transit the Ahwatukee Foothills Core is the most
the Addendum to this TA early. corridors. dangerous intersection in the Village.
Concerns with potential pedestrian conflicts.
Alhambra 7/27/2021 Concerns that this is a density giveaway. 10/26/2021 Denial 12-3-0 Concerns with lack of outreach to community.
Sensitivity regarding Christown Mall. Interest Concerns with lack of policy on how this will
regarding details of SFA with a preference be implemented. Concerns with compatibility
that this be a 1:1. with some established neighborhoods.
Concerns with WU Code being abused by
developers. Concern with eventual erosion of
evaluation process to proliferate density
citywide.
Camelback East 8/3/2021 No concerns at this time. Request to ensure 10/5/2021 Denial 10-2 Not enough information, TA is vague,
no language regarding charter schools is ambiguous, and "one-size-fits-all". Concern
included in proposed text. with WU Code being abused by developers
like PUDs currently are.
Central City 7/12/2021 More explanation needed regarding how the 10/11/2021 Approval 10-3 Concern with lack of outreach to community.
current WU Code fees were created, and are
there other parts of the WU Code that should
be updated to be more current.
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 No concerns 10/14/2021 Denial 4-3-1 Concerns that WU Code is not appropriate for
properties citywide. Should be implemented
on major transit corridors, BRT, Light Rail.
Concerns about increased density.
11/1/2021
Page 416
EXHIBIT B
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
Desert View 7/13/2021 (No quorum) Concerns that WU Code (specifically frontage 10/5/2021 Denial 6-1 Concerns that WU Code is not appropriate for
8/3/2021 standards) will not be compatible with the properties citywide.
southwestern character of the City. Concerns
that WU Code is not compatible with the Concerns about increased density.
Desert View Village. Concerns that the City is
pushing higher density. More explanation
needed regarding how the TA will affect HP
properties. More information required about
the creation of new TOD districts. Distance to
parks should be included in the analysis.
Encanto 7/12/2021 Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code 10/4/2021 Denial 8-0 Too many unknowns. Questions regarding
will draw development focus away from the what policy guidance exists on which
light rail corridors. Concerns with the lack of transects belong where. Concerns regarding
design review requirements for WU Code. lack of a transect map. Concerns regarding
Concerns with how the transects will be lack of public engagement.
implemented (i.e., policy basis) outside of
TOD corridors.
Estrella 7/20/2021 Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code 10/19/2021 Denial 7-0 WU Code is not compatible with parts of
will not be compatible with some parts of the Estrella Village which are not walkable. Open
Estrella Village such as the areas far west. to reconsidering alternatives such as limiting
the applicability to TOD districts and Village
Cores.
Laveen 7/12/2021 Request for further information regarding 10/11/2021 Approval with a 8-0 Concern with applicability of WU Code
implementation of WU Code and DRC modification to expand only outside of the context of transit areas.
process. Overall support. to Villlage Cores and high
capacity transit corridors.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 Concern with design standards for WU Code 10/13/2021 Approval 6-2 No concerns. More information requested
projects. regarding what the WU Code is and how it will
benefit Maryvale.
11/1/2021
Page 417
EXHIBIT B
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
North Gateway 8/12/2021 No concerns 10/14/2021 Denial 4-0 Concerns that the City has not provided WU
Code transect maps. Concerns that WU
Code is not appropriate citywide. Concerns
that this will allow high density in residential
areas. Concerns about lack of public input.
Concerns that the text amendment lacks
specificity.
North Mountain 7/21/2021 No concerns 10/20/2021 Approval 11-2-2 Too many unknowns. Unclear what policy
guidance exists on which transects belong
where. Concerns regarding lack of public
engagement. Concerns regarding lack of a
transect map.
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 No concerns 10/4/2021 Approval 16-0 No concerns
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 No concerns 10/12/2021 Denial 3-2 Concerns that this would allow height where it
does not belong. States that the text
amendment should be accompanied by
transect maps. Concerns that they would not
know all conflicts between the WU Code and
remaining Zoning Ordinance. Concerns that
the TA is moving away from the original intent
of WU Code. WU Code is not appropriate
citywide.
South Mountain 7/13/2021 WU code should be focused along arterial 10/12/2021 Denial 5-4-1 Concerns regarding potential impacts of
streets. Concerns regarding WU code citywide expansion. Concerns regarding lack
governing over regulatory overlay districts of geographic boundaries to applicability,
(e.g., BAOD, FCOD, RSIO, etc.). such as Village Cores and high-capacity
transit corridors.
11/1/2021
Page 418
Attachment H
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 19
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-3-19 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
WU Code Expansion and Fee Updates
Proposal: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c,
and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A, 1304.F,
1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban Code boundaries citywide, including
updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of Walkable Urban
Code process and procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant
to the expansion; amend the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
Walkable Urban Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Area, and update fees for new processes.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 9/27/2021 Information only.
Ahwatukee Foothills 10/25/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a
modification. Vote: 6-4 (1 abstained).
Alhambra 7/27/2021 Information only.
Alhambra 10/26/2021 Denial. Vote: 13-3.
Camelback East 8/3/2021 Information only.
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 10-2.
Central City 7/12/2021 Information only.
Central City 10/11/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 10-3.
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 10/14/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-3 (1 abstained).
Desert View 8/3/2021 Information only.
Desert View 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 6-1.
Encanto 7/12/2021 Information only.
Encanto 10/4/2021 Denial. Vote: 8-0.
Estrella 7/20/2021 Information only.
Estrella 10/19/2021 Denial. Vote: 7-0.
Page 419
Laveen 7/12/2021 Information only.
Laveen 10/11/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modification. Vote: 8-0.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 Information only.
Maryvale 10/13/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 6-2.
North Gateway 8/12/2021 Information only.
North Gateway 10/14/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-0.
North Mountain 7/21/2021 Information only.
North Mountain 10/20/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Vote: 11-2 (2 abstained).
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 16-0.
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 Information only.
Rio Vista 10/12/2021 Denial. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 7/13/2021 Information only.
South Mountain 10/12/2021 Denial. Vote: 5-4 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-3-19, per the
Addendum B Staff Report.
Maker: Mangum
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes (Possibly registered in error)
Findings:
1. The expansion of WU Code applicability supports the goals of the Housing Phoenix
Plan.
2. The proposal will allow for WU Code applications within approved Transit Oriented
Development District boundaries as shown on the Transit Oriented Communities Map
within the proposed language.
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and duty under
the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by the development
review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning and Development
Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of design guidelines and
architectural diversity standards, to review and approve Design Alternatives and
Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to
Page 420
review and approve design alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH
standards within the boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to read as
follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative or
Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to properties
within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject
Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design Alternatives apply to properties within
the boundaries of the WITH Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown
and Solano Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield,
Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER
RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design Alternatives that
demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban Code as set forth in
Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies contained within the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED
Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS. The modifications must meet the
standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement the vision
and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an appropriate mixture and density of
activity around transit stations; to increase transit ridership in general and along the
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and
to promote multiple modes of transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to
improve pedestrian safety from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the
public health,; to decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of
congestion and pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing
the following:
Page 421
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District
Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES MAP for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano. The boundaries of these areas
are shown in the District Maps located in the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano, Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence over
diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR THROUGH
THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for properties
subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall prevail.
PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP) ZONING ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
Page 422
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict between the provisions
of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A
CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE
SHALL PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR
BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE
SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES SHALL TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all transect districts
except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615, Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL
COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING
FRONTAGE STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS ABUTTING
PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION 608.F.8 AND SECTION 614,
TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED)
IF IT MEETS ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS
AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE AREA FOR THE
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE), AS MAY BE
Page 423
MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback standards as the
single-family attached development option. If development is adjacent to a single-family
zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic preservation designated property or district the
following additional requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
(SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS
FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached dwellings.
STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM
REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side
property lines for building height before maximum height allowed. FOR ALL
DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED
PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL
BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE REQUIRED WHERE
THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN
DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH, PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS
as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary frontage is designated by the
Planning and Development Department, AND all remaining frontages are designated
secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage, excluding
driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
Page 424
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area between
the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an urban,
pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all PROPERTIES
WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1306.H.1.b to read as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the Transit
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS ARE
as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least five
percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR DEVELOPMENTS
UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B,
COLUMN D, REGARDLESS OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre. *
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided by
Landscaping trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided in
areas with no pavement or
structures.
Page 425
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE AS
REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Section 1311.A.1 (General Considerations) to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield,
Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit services, TRANSIT
ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS:
***
Amend Section 1313.D.3.a to remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification of
zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by appropriate
fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES, $210.00
T6:7 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP TO
100 ACRES, AND $70.00 PER
Page 426
ACRE FOR MORE THAN 100
ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30% OF
THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
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 427
Attachment I
David O Simmons
From: Bramley Paulin
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:45 PM
To: PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Z-TA-3-19 Walkable Urban (WU) Code - RECONSIDERATION VOTE
Good evening Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Members
I am asking the PV committee members for a reconsideration vote from the October 4, 2021, Item #3 Z-TA-3-19
Walkable Urban (WU) Code.
The presentation details did not address the negative impacts and ramification to existing neighborhoods.
This Text Amendment (TA) will promote bad high density residential development that will undoubtedly have a negative
effect on existing detached residential neighborhoods.
The impacts of the WU Code expansion will adversely change the character of existing neighborhoods with increased
vehicular traffic and increase building height.
The original WU Code was specifically designed for properties within close proximity to light rail by reducing vehicle use
and creating urban density within walking distance to transit stations.
Of the four villages that have heard this TA to date, PV is the only committee to support the amendment. Both Encanto
and East Camelback villages, who have light rail transit within their boundaries and work with the WU Code on a regular
basis, voted overwhelmingly to deny the expansion of the WU Code city-wide.
I therefore, respectfully ask that one or more committee members who voted in favor of the TA, submit a written
request to the committee planner Mr. Simmons, within the next 48-hours, asking for a reconsider vote to take place at
the next committee meeting.
With Appreciation,
Bramley Paulin
(602) 918-2998
Page 428
VISION
Every Arizonan has a safe, affordable place to call home.
MISSION
The Arizona Housing Coalition (AZHC) is a collaborative association
that leads in the efforts to end homelessness and provide safe,
affordable housing to all Arizonans.
Speaking Up for Home and Hope
Phoenix City Hall
200 W Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 November 1st, 2021
Dear Mayor Gallego and Council Members,
On behalf of the Arizona Housing Coalition and our members, I am writing in regard to item #21, Z-TA-3-19,
the expansion of the Walkable Urban Code, that will be heard at the planning commission at 6pm on
Thursday, November 4 2021.
The expansion of the Walkable Urban Code is a critical component of the Housing Phoenix Plan, which
was adopted by council in summer of 2020. Since the adoption of this plan, the affordable housing crisis in
the city has deepened. Rents have increased by 28% in the last year and are approaching the most
expensive in the county. The housing crisis in Phoenix is considered at breaking point with high occupancy
rates and the fewest available units in 50 years. The number of households experiencing homelessness in
Maricopa County has risen significantly between April 2020 to August 2021 and our homeless services are
in huge demand. Finding units for low income households has become incredibly difficult in the city,
resulting in these increases in homelessness, including a significant spike in elderly homelessness.
Restricting housing to single family detached forces rents and home prices to rise. This historical zoning
practice also creates segregated neighborhoods. The expansion of the Walkable Urban Code is a critical
tool to address barriers to increasing affordable housing in the city of Phoenix by allowing greater density
and addressing the missing middle of development. The ability to build duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes
will allow an increase in density that does not compromise the landscape of the city. Allowing diverse
housing options, the code will allow the 15 villages to accomplish their goals of creating mixed-use,
walkable urban cores.
Considering the extent of the growing housing crisis in the city of Phoenix, it is essential that the tools and
practices passed in the Housing Phoenix Plan are adopted. We therefore strongly support the expansion of
the Walkable Urban Code.
Sincerely,
Joanna Carr
Director of Research and Policy
The Arizona Housing Coalition
1495 E. Osborn Road,| Phoenix, AZ 85014 | (602) 340-9393 | azhousingcoalition.org
Page 429
Re: Z-TA-3-19 expanding the Walkable Urban Code
Dear Members of the Encanto Village:
As a person who gave up their car over 5 years ago and depends on public transit and her feet to get
around Phoenix, whenever I see codes or language of codes that refer to an area being “walkable,” I
laugh. Why? Because I strongly suspect that the person/people who write such codes have book
learning, but little practical experience in walking.
I also wonder/question, who are these codes going to help? Me the pedestrian???? While that might
have been the original intention, the end result and my conclusion is NO, it is not really for my benefit as
a pedestrian. To be really cynical, it appears that this code is more for a developer’s purpose and making
the city appear to care about pedestrians.
In fact, often the recommendations are antithetical to a pedestrian feeling the area is “walkable.” What
do I mean by that?
1. Walkable should mean safe. Safe from speeding cars and safe from bicycles (which in my
opinion do NOT BELONG ON SIDEWALKS).
2. So a reasonable barrier of at least two feet should be mandated between the sidewalk and the
street.
3. BUT, so many of the new multi-housing tracts going up are rather close to the sidewalk and
provide a “looming” feel. One expects buildings to be up to the sidewalk when they are
department stores and office buildings such as we find downtown. But I prefer having space
between me and a residential high-rise and I wonder if the residents appreciate pedestrians
being that close.
4. And what do so many people address when focusing on something being walkable??? Of course,
it’s shade. Despite the city’s desire to have more shade, it continues to fail miserably. It’s
difficult to know why that happens.
5. I recall reading a number of years ago reading about buildings needing to provide 75% shade at
the summer solstice. Sounds great doesn’t it? But the summer solstice is in June and our hottest
months are July, August, September (and sometimes even into October). Wouldn’t you think
that 75% shade coverage should include those months too?
6. How do we achieve shade for the walkable environment? First we must understand the sun’s
path especially during the hottest months. East/west running streets are trickier to handle, but
north/south are easier. (By the way, a clear example of the problem is looking at the Light Rail
Stops….shade. HA!) But we pedestrians beg for shade all day during those blisteringly hot
months so trees need to be placed on both sides of the sidewalk to form a canopy (and please
no thinning them during the summer months). That defeats the entire purpose of having trees.
And for those who do not know me, I don’t leave home without my large personal shade
structure better known as an umbrella.
7. While it is not part of the WU Code, my safety should include crossing the street. Recently I was
nearly hit twice in the same section of a crosswalk within less than 10 seconds by drivers who
did not care that they were breaking the law and certainly did not care that I was a potential
impediment to them making their respective right and left hand turns. The intersection was
none other than 7th Street & McDowell Road. It is scary out there.
Page 430
Rather than continue going over the current issues/failings of the basic WU Code, I would hope you as a
recommending body would suggest that the city (planning department) re-examine my points and call in
some pedestrians to discuss these issues and how they can be rectified before expanding the areas of
the city that WU Code will cover. We could have a win-win situation and Phoenix could be seen as a
national leader in the implementation of an excellent Walkable Urban Code.
After working and living downtown for over 20 years, I know which streets have the most shade for
pedestrians (shade for cars does not count) and which side of the street I should walk on depending on
the direction and the time of day. I’d be more than happy to give you some tips.
A concerned citizen who knows we can do better.
Donna Reiner, PhD
2501 N 8th St.
Phoenix, AZ 85006-1049
Page 431
November 19, 2021
Alan Stephenson
Director, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Position on Z-TA-3-19 Walkable Urban Code Expansion
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
The Downtown Voices Coalition Steering Committee supports allowing parcels to be rezoned to Walkable Urban
Code in the locations outlined below. Downtown Voices is currently neutral on all other city-wide expansions of
Walkable Urban Code.
● Light Rail: Within 1/2 mile of all current and future designated light rail lines
● Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Within 1/2 mile of all current and future designated BRT lines
● Village Cores: Within the primary and secondary Village Cores as designated on the General Plan Map
● Canals: Directly adjacent to the City canal system with the canal designated as an active frontage
● Rio Salado: Within the bounds of the Rio Salado Overlay District. Where applicable, a designated public
setback and active river frontage shall also be required. Encouragement to extend this corridor east with
consideration for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport operations.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff Sherman
Steering Committee Chair
jeff.sherman@downtownvoices.org
cc: The Honorable Kate Gallego, Mayor
Phoenix City Council Members
DVC Steering Committee Members
A community organization working to make Downtown Phoenix sustainable for all through
smart growth, great neighborhoods, vibrant ideas, and honest, open discussion...
downtownvoices.org / @downtownvoices / info@downtownvoices.org
Page 432
Racelle Escolar
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:09 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Request to Speak & Comments Item #19 Planning Commission Z-TA-3-19
Attachments: Proposed WU Code T3-2 Applicability Language.docx; UPP Supports Vision Zero Fact Sheet.pdf
Good afternoon Planning Commission Staff,
I am writing to request to speak in support of item #19, Z‐TA‐3‐19, at the Planning Commission on 01/06/2022.
Additionally, I'd like to submit the following written comments:
Honorable Planning Commissioners, I ask that you approve Z‐TA‐3‐19 but with a slight amendment that would allow
the T3:2 transect district to be available for property owners to apply to anywhere within the City of Phoenix.
The WU Code is very much a necessity along the transit‐oriented development districts and I doubt you will hear much
opposition about offering it as an option in the areas in addendum B. Frankly, transit‐oriented development should be
expanded to incorporate the bus rapid transit lines as well as the light rail as high‐capacity transit allows denser living
and supports transit. We often find ourselves in a catch‐22 in which individuals tell us we can't build quality public
transit because there aren't enough people nearby, and yet we legally restrict the amount of housing that we can build
because it would cause too much traffic without quality public transit. Expanding the WU Code applicability around
high‐capacity transit is common sense and the proposal in addendum B is the least the City of Phoenix can do.
However, the City of Phoenix has a larger housing problem that this text amendment originally sought to
address. Phoenix continues to be one of the fastest growing cities and the Housing Phoenix Plan noted we are
underproducing housing units to the tune of a gap of 163,067 units. If we were to attempt to build these units with
single‐family detached housing it would require 31,613 acres of land, but the City of Phoenix only has 24,928 acres of
vacant land. Phoenix would need 7,315 acres more of vacant land and to build only single‐family detached housing to
meet this gap, simply put you can not build enough low‐density housing to meet the need.
The Housing Plan recognized that and noted that we should expand the Walkable Urban Code among other tools to
allow further housing options and diversity. Many types of housing are illegal under the current zoning code.
Would you like to build townhouses or a duplex? The single‐family attached option is only legal in central Phoenix on
this map from ZO 608.F.8.
Page1 433
Would you like to build a triplex or a fourplex? Those do not appear to be allowed in the R1‐06 and lower density
zoning districts. They are also subject to commercial permitting making them harder to build.
Would you like to build an 8‐unit apartment complex? To rezone to a district that allows it also allows much larger
project in R‐5 and R‐3. If you can build a much bigger project, why stop at just 8 units if it is going to cost you the same
amount to rezone the property?
Phoenix lacks middle housing zoning. R1‐06 [phoenix.municipal.codes], one of the most common single‐family zoning
districts and one of the densest has a dwelling limit of 5 units per acre or for comparison purposes 10 units per 2 acres.
That's less dense than several older Phoenix neighborhoods. There are 10 units on 1.8 acres in Encanto and 10 units on
1.5 acres in Oakland neighborhood. R‐2 [phoenix.municipal.codes], a rarer multifamily zoning allows 20 units on the
same 2 acres but still restricts the attached housing option to the above map. Phoenix does not have a district in
between these.
WU Code T3:2 is a logical in‐between district that should be available for Phoenix neighborhoods to discuss using. ZO‐
1302 [phoenix.municipal.codes] and ZO‐1303 [phoenix.municipal.codes] describe this low‐intensity district and it is
the same as R1‐06 except that it allows single‐family attached, duplexes, live‐work, day care, accessory dwelling units,
professional offices and interim vacant lot uses. WU Code T3:2 has the same height limitation as R1‐06 and same
mandatory minimum parking outside of the light rail districts and slightly less restrictive lot coverage requirements.
If Phoenix is to stand any chance of meeting that housing gap of 163,067 units, we must legalize more housing options
to be built in Phoenix. Is this a silver bullet? No, but we can't even begin talking about addressing the affordability crisis
unless there are actual housing units available for people.
Let's plan and build our communities with a variety of options for denser development. If we don't, people are going to
be forced to make tough decisions and these single‐family detached neighborhoods might see multiple families living in
one house creating the very problems they fear from multi‐family development.
Page2 434
Please vote to approve Z‐TA‐3‐19 addendum B WITH an amendment to allow WU Code T3:2 be requested anywhere
in the City. Language is in the attachment.
Please let me know if you have any questions or requests for data. I intend to speak at the 01/06/2022 Planning
Commission to bring up these points.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Interim President, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Page3 435
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land uses, subdivisions, and
development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake‐Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano. The boundaries of
these areas are shown in the District Maps located in the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake‐Garfield, Solano, Midtown and Uptown. TRANSECT DISTRICT T3:2 IS APPLICABLE
ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR THROUGH THE PROCEDURES
OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
Page 436
Urban Phoenix Project
SUPPORTS
Vision Zero in the Roadway Safety
Action Plan
Item #10 - TIP Subcommittee
Why Vision Zero?
Phoenix has disproportionately more collisions with pedestrians AND bicyclists
than the region. Pop.: 36% of Region. Ped. Crashes: 63%. Bike Crashes: 43%.
Phoenix has not reduced fatalities and significant injuries in a measurable
manner. Action is needed from the perspective of saving lives.
Vision Zero is: Vision Zero is NOT:
A new way to look at our roads. One-size-fits-all. Actions and
Instead of assuming accidents plans remain individualized for
do not happen, Vision Zero neighborhoods and streets. The
accepts that humans are fallible goal is simply to reduce fatalities
and designs streets so those to zero in all of these areas.
accidents don't turn fatal. A citywide reduction of speed
Data-driven. We look at internal limits. Council makes those
data, best practices from across decisions separately and
the globe and consults the individually. Tempe did not set all
community before of its speed limits to 25 mph.
recommendations are made. A silver bullet. We know that
Widely-adopted. Adopting there will still be fatalities on the
jurisdictions include neighboring road system, but we should
urban Tempe, Southwestern actually try to fix this issue.
peer Albuquerque, East Coast Anti-motorist. Drivers get killed
New York City and even the too in these crashes. Safer
State of North Dakota. streets mean EVERYONE
makes it home.
For more information, contact Ryan Boyd at
RyanAndrewBoyd1@gmail.com.
Page 437
Urban Phoenix Project
SUPPORTS
Vision Zero in the Roadway Safety
Action Plan
Item #10 - TIP Subcommittee
What is worth more: one minute on your commute or a life?
Vision Zero is not pro-congestion and tactics do not seek to lessen the number
of drivers. The goal is to make sure EVERYONE lives.
As an example, a 5-mile trip at a constant speed takes only 48 seconds more if
you drove 40 mph rather than 45 mph. Congestion is a result of delay, not
speed. You can see this when people "race to red lights."
What can we do?
Work across disciplines. Vision Zero engages a multidiscipline approach. It
brings all stakeholders to the table including public health, land use,
development, engineering, and more.
There are many tools that work within a Vision Zero framework. For an
example, give pedestrians preference crossing compared to motorists
making turns. Turning is a major conflict area where if someone makes a
mistake, a pedestrian dies. Give the pedestrian time to cross the street
before the motorists attempt to make a turn.
Provide protection by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from high
speed traffic. Broken bollards are a lot easier to replace than broken
bones. Raised crosswalks, cycle tracks and traditional buffered and
protected bike lanes are all options.
Make sure everything we do is from a lens of equity. Vision Zero
emphasizes that all steps from research through implementation include
and center our diverse communities in the mission of saving lives.
ADOPT VISION ZERO NOW. Let's not waste any more time. ALL road
decisions should be centered around safe transportation.
For more information, contact Ryan Boyd at
RyanAndrewBoyd1@gmail.com.
Page 438
Report
Expansion and Fee Schedule Update - Z-TA-3-19 (Ordinance G-6962)
Request to hold a public hearing on a proposed text amendment Z-TA-3-19 and to
request City Council approval per the Planning Commission recommendation which
amends Chapter 3, Chapter 5, and Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the
Walkable Urban Code boundaries and amends the Zoning Fee Schedule.
Summary
Application: Z-TA-3-19
Proposal: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative Bodies), Chapter 5
(Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable Urban Code) of the
Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide, including updates to
clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and procedure, and
updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend the Zoning Fee
Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19, per the Addendum
B Staff Report (Attachment G).
VPC Action: The request was heard by all 15 Village Planning Committees (VPCs).
Four VPCs recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report; two VPCs
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modification; and
nine VPCs recommended denial, as reflected in Attachments D and F.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report, by a vote of 8-0, as
reflected in the Planning Commission Summary (Attachment H).
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 276
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING PORTIONS OF THE CODE OF THE
CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA, PART II, CHAPTER 41, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX BY AMENDING
CHAPTER 3 (DECISION MAKING AND ADMINISTRATIVE
BODIES), CHAPTER 5 (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCEDURES)
AND CHAPTER 13 (WALKABLE URBAN CODE) OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE TO EXPAND THE WU CODE BOUNDARIES
CITYWIDE, INCLUDING UPDATES TO CLARIFY RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS, CLARIFICATION OF WU CODE PROCESS AND
PROCEDURE, AND UPDATING GENERAL LOT STANDARDS
RELEVANT TO THE EXPANSION; AND AMEND THE ZONING
FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE FEES FOR WU CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS, DOWNTOWN CODE-CHARACTER AREAS, AND
UPDATE FEES FOR NEW PROCESSES.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. That Chapter 3, Section 309.A (Design Review Committee)
is amended to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
-1- Ordinance ________
Page 277
SECTION 2. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and
Sustainability Bonus Appeals), is amended to read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
SECTION 3. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G.1.c, is amended to read as
follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
SECTION 4. That Chapter 5, Section 507.G.4.c, is amended to read as
follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
SECTION 5. That Chapter 13, Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent), is
amended to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
-2- Ordinance ________
Page 278
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
SECTION 6. That Chapter 13, Section 1301.C (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
-3- Ordinance ________
Page 279
-4- Ordinance ________
Page 280
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
-5- Ordinance ________
Page 281
SECTION 7. That Chapter 13, Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards), is
amended to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
-6- Ordinance ________
Page 282
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
SECTION 8. That Chapter 13, Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade), is
amended to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
SECTION 9. That Chapter 13, Section 1305.A (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
-7- Ordinance ________
Page 283
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
SECTION 10. That Chapter 13, Section 1306.A (Applicability), is amended
to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
SECTION 11. That Chapter 13, Section 1306.H.1.b, is amended to read
as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the
Transit District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano.
***
SECTION 12. That Chapter 13, Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines),
is amended to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
-8- Ordinance ________
Page 284
SECTION 13. That Chapter 13, Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space
Type Guidelines), is amended to read as follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
SECTION 14. That Chapter 13, Section 1311.A.1 (General
Considerations), is amended to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit
services, TRANSIT ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS:
***
SECTION 15. That Chapter 13, Section 1313.D.3.a, is amended to
remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
-9- Ordinance ________
Page 285
***
SECTION 16. That Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) is amended to
read as follows and renumbered accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
-10- Ordinance ________
Page 286
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February, 2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________City Attorney
REVIEWED BY:
____________________________City Manager
-11- Ordinance ________
Page 287
Attachment B
Staff Report
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections
507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to
expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE EXPANSION
Purpose/Background: On July 31, 2015, the Phoenix City Council approved Text
Amendment No. Z-TA-8-09 and adopted the related Ordinance No. G-6047, which
amended Sections 202, 309, and 507, and created Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance
regarding the Walkable Urban Code (WU Code).
On June 6, 2019, the Phoenix Planning Commission initiated a text amendment to
amend Chapter 13 to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide; amend the Zoning Fee
Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Areas and update fees for new processes; and to address minimum acreage limitations
on charter schools to comply with limitations allowed by ARS 15-189.01. This text
amendment does not include amendments regarding the minimum acreage limitations
on charter schools. Proposed amendments regarding charter school regulations may be
addressed in a future text amendment.
Currently, the WU Code may be applied and is limited to land uses, subdivisions, and
development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano districts. The purpose of this
text amendment is to remove geographic restrictions on applicability and allow the WU
Code to be applied to properties citywide. Removing these restrictions will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within future Transit Oriented District
(TOD) Policy Plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
WU Code zoning districts subject to all relevant processes and procedures applicable to
such applications.
Expanding the boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code also supports the goals of the
Housing Phoenix Plan adopted by the Phoenix City Council in June 2020. The Plan
Page 288
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
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 Plan has a goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and proposes policy initiatives to achieve this goal, including amending the current
Zoning Ordinance to facilitate more housing options.
The WU Code is a form-based code that prioritizes the development of pedestrian
oriented environments, promotes diverse housing options, and does not contain limits
on dwelling unit density. The WU Code promotes walkable, shaded, human-scale,
transit-oriented development that is uniquely suited for transit districts and other urban
areas targeted for higher intensity development. Expanding the boundaries of the WU
Code will allow for consideration of proposed developments utilizing the Code outside of
the current approved TOD Districts.
This text amendment also prevents the need for future text amendments to continue
adding references to newly approved Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans as
these plans are individually adopted or approved. Finally, this proposal will eliminate
the need for the use of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning district to
implement Walkable Urban Code standards for properties outside the boundaries of the
current approved TOD Districts.
This text amendment also includes revisions to development standards and design
guidelines, including general lot standards, frontages, building and shade, open space,
and public space type, which are intended to correct existing issues related to
subdivisions and existing limitations and requirements for single-family attached (SFA)
development which are relevant to the expansion of WU Code applicability citywide.
Applicants requesting a change to WU Code zoning must follow the rezoning process
per Section 506 of the Zoning Ordinance. This text amendment will not rezone any
property to WU Code zoning and will not modify any aspect of the current rezoning
process.
The following provides a summary of the proposed changes:
• Geographic Restrictions on the Applicability of the WU Code
Sections 309.A, 507.G, 1301.C, and 1305 are revised to remove references to
geographic restrictions on the applicability of the WU Code and/or references to
the current ‘boundaries’ of the WU Code. The current language restricts
applications for WU Code zoning to properties depicted on the boundary maps of
the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Transit Oriented
District (TOD) Policy Plans. The intent behind removing geographic restrictions
Page 289
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
and references to ‘boundaries’ is to allow for the WU Code to be applied citywide
through the rezoning process.
• Policy Plan References Relevant to WU Code Rezoning Requests
Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, 507.G.4.c, and 1301.B are revised to clarify the
relevant policy plans that the WU Code is intended to implement, clarify relevant
policy plans that should be considered when evaluating requests for rezoning to
WU Code zoning, and provide the Design Review Committee (DRC) clear review
criteria regarding applications for Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus
Appeals for properties with WU Code zoning.
These revisions include removing references to the five currently approved TOD
Policy Plan Character Areas (Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano) and replacing these with a reference to transit-oriented policy plans
generally. This proposal has no impact on the applicability or any considerations
regarding these existing TOD Policy Plans. The intent is to allow flexibility for
consideration of policy plans for future TOD Districts as they are adopted without
necessitating additional text amendments. Additionally, this will allow the
consideration of other transit-oriented policy plans in evaluating requests for WU
Code zoning districts including, but not limited to, the Transit-Oriented
Development Strategic Policy Framework.
Further, the proposed expansion of the WU Code as a zoning district for
properties citywide necessitates that additional review criteria be identified
regarding relevant policy plans for properties in non-TOD districts. Proposed
revisions in Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c clarify that other relevant
policy plans should be considered when the DRC is considering requests for
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. Relevant policy plans
may include citywide plans such as the recently adopted Housing Phoenix Plan
or the 2015 Phoenix General Plan, or Village, community, or neighborhood
specific plans such as Village core plans, Village character plans, Special
Planning Districts, neighborhood conservation plans, and many others.
These revisions will allow greater flexibility in determining appropriate review
criteria for WU Code rezoning requests on a property-by-property basis. This
result is further expressed in the proposed revision to Section 1301.B which
modifies the purpose and intent of the WU Code generally to apply to a wider
range of development scenarios. These revisions include removing the
distinction between ‘primary’ and ‘secondary’ purposes of the Code, which
currently prioritizes the TOD Policy Plan’s visions and policies above
neighborhood improvements such as pedestrian safety and public health. The
proposed revisions clearly establish the equal weight of all these goals in
evaluating such requests. Additionally, the proposal removes a reference to
specific Light Rail corridors and replaces it with a reference to transit corridors
Page 290
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
generally which will allow the Code to remain relevant as new extensions are
activated. However, this will also allow communities that do not contain light rail
corridors, but may contain key transit corridors such as future bus-rapid transit
lines, to help evaluate requests for WU Code zoning and whether they represent
an appropriate mixture and density of activity.
• WU Code Process and Procedure Clarification
Sections 1301.C and 1306.A are revised to include minor administrative
adjustments that clarify processes and procedures within the WU Code. These
include revisions to 1301.C.1 to clarify that WU Code Transect Districts are
zoning districts that may be applied for through the conventional rezoning
process, 1301.C.2.a to address conflicts between Chapter 8 (Historic
Preservation) and Chapter 13 (WU Code), 1301.C.2.b to clarify conflicts with the
remainder of the Zoning Ordinance and 1301.C.3 to address conflicts within the
WU Code, and 1306.A to clarify applicability of the Land Use Matrix. These
revisions are not intended to modify any existing Code requirements but rather to
clarify the original intent of the Code and the appropriate hierarchies of authority
for plan and project review.
• WU Code General Lot Standards Relevant to Expansion of WU Code
Section 1303.A is revised to address general lot standards relevant to the
expansion of WU Code applicability. Revisions include the following:
Section 1303.A.1 includes new language that conclusively establishes that
new lots created by subdividing properties within WU Code transect
districts shall comply with frontage standards on new public and private
street frontages, not just existing perimeter frontages. Except that Section
1303.A.1.a is proposed to allow an exception for SFA development.
Section 1303.A.1.a includes a correction regarding an existing reference
to a graphic describing building setback and stepbacks which is in Section
614, and not Section 615. This section also includes revisions that clarify
that the SFA development option is available for properties that meet three
conditions:
1) Section 1303.A.1.a.(1) requires that the development consist solely
of attached dwelling units and permitted accessory uses. This
condition is required because the WU Code permits a wider variety
of land uses than the conventional multifamily residential zoning
districts that the SFA development option is currently permitted in.
Without this clarification, it would appear that an SFA development
may be permitted that integrates commercial or other mixed-uses.
Page 291
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
2) Section 1303.A.1.a.(2) requires that the subject property be located
in the Applicable Area for the Single-Family Attached Development
Option or the Infill Development District as depicted on the existing
map provided in Section 608.F.8. This condition is required to
ensure that the SFA development option is not utilized on
properties with WU Code transects outside of the existing areas for
which the SFA development option is currently approved. These
areas are identified on the map referenced in the proposed
language.
3) Section 1303.A.1.a.(3) requires that the development be located in
any WU Code transect other than T3. This is an existing condition
in 1303.A.1 that is proposed to move to this new section. This
existing condition is required because the T3 transect is intended to
provide for a low-intensity residential fabric characterized primarily
by detached single-family homes and duplexes in relatively
large lots with deep setbacks. The SFA development option is not
appropriate for the intended character of the T3 transect.
Section 1303.A.1.b includes a revision that clarifies the role of the
Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Committee in regard to SFA
development for WU Code properties. Specifically, that WU Code
properties are subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance
and that the Subdivision Committee shall consider the stated goals of the
WU Code in evaluating modifications.
Section 1303.A.2 includes revisions that address all WU Code
development adjacent to property with a single-family zoning district and
establishes a requirement that these shared property lines should be
developed using SFA building setback and stepback standards. This
corrects an error regarding an Ordinance reference to the single-family
development option and revises existing Ordinance language to apply
these standards to all developments. Revisions also include three
additional requirements regarding SFA development:
1) Section 1303.A.2.a retains the original language of 1303.A.2.b
which addresses stepback provisions.
2) Section 1303.A.2.b clarifies and relocates original language from
1303.A.2 and 1303.A.2.a which address a minimum ten-foot
landscape setback for all development abutting historic
preservation designated properties or districts. This clarification is
required as the original language only addressed development in
the T4, T5, and T6 transects, whereas the revised language
addresses all transects as described above.
Page 292
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
3) Section 1303.A.2.c establishes a new provision stating that no
stepback provisions or landscape setbacks are required where a
development abuts a permanent open space at least 40 feet in
depth, such as a wash, preserve, park, existing golf course, or
dedicated open space. This provision is intended to provide
consistency with the existing provision applied to conventional
residential zoning districts in Section 608.I.3.
Section 1303.A.6 includes multiple revisions to add private accessways
and private driveways to a list regarding locations where frontage
standards apply. This is consistent with the existing Section 202
definitions of Building Frontage and Frontage which addresses private
accessways. This standard will not apply along internal driveways which
do not abut lot lines which is consistent with current Ordinance language.
Section 1304.F.2 includes a revision requiring that developments provide shading along
their entire frontage and not along what is currently referred to as “right-of-way
frontage”. The existing language is unclear and the revision also provides consistency
with the proposed revision to Section 1303.A.6 as described above.
Section 1310 is revised to address open space standards relevant to the expansion of
WU Code applicability. Revisions include the following:
Section 1310.A.1 includes a correction to specify that T3 parcels are
exempt from required ‘public open space improvements’ and not ‘public
space improvements’. Note that as this text amendment does not permit
SFA development in the T3 district, there is no need to require open space
per that development option.
Section 1310.A.2 includes a correction to clarify that the open space
requirements in this section apply to all developments within the T4, T5,
and T6 transects. The original language exempted residential land uses
from these requirements. There is no other Ordinance section with
comparable standards that apply to residential land uses in these WU
Code transects and this corrects the problem.
Section 1310.A.2.a includes a revision that requires SFA developments to
provide open space as required by Section 614, Table B, Column D,
regardless of lot size. In the existing language, it is unclear if the WU
Code overrides SFA standards, which would otherwise require open
space regardless of lot size.
Section 1310, Table 1310.1 contains two minor revisions to provide consistency with the
proposed modifications in Section 1310 as described above.
Page 293
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
ZONING FEE SCHEDULE UPDATE
Purpose/Background: On July 31, 2015, the Phoenix City Council approved TA-8-09
and adopted Ordinance No. G-6047, which amended Sections 202, 309, and 507, and
created Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding the WU Code. Planning and
Development Department staff in the Zoning section subsequently established
administrative fees for rezoning requests to the various transect districts in the WU
Code. The fees that were established were determined to provide consistency with the
Zoning Ordinance’s existing fees for comparable conventional zoning districts. The
purpose of this text amendment is to insert the WU Code rezoning fees into the Zoning
Fee Schedule in the Zoning Ordinance.
The following provides a summary of the proposed changes:
Appendix A, Fee Schedule – A new Section A.1.7 is proposed to add fees relevant to
rezoning requests to WU Code transect districts.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the changes to the Zoning Ordinance as proposed in
Exhibit A.
Writer
A. Stranieri
July 12, 2021
Exhibit
A. Proposed Language (7 Pages)
Page 294
EXHIBIT A
Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Boundary Expansion and Fee Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
Page 295
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
Page 296
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Page 297
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
Page 298
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Page 299
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Page 300
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
July 12, 2021
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
Page 301
Attachment C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
(Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule Update)
September 28, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative
Bodies), Chapter 5 (Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable
Urban Code) of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide,
including updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and
procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend
the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown
Code-Character Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
The purpose of this Addendum is to address minor revisions to the recommended text
in Exhibit A. Below is a summary of the proposed revisions to the text amendment
which are also denoted as underlined text in Exhibit A dated September 28, 2021.
1. Section 1301.C.2.b
New language is proposed to clarify that the WU Code does not eliminate any
overlay zoning district, redevelopment area, special planning district, or specific
plan. These zoning districts and plans may contain defined geographic
boundaries within which properties are subject to regulatory standards or
guidelines. The proposed language is intended to clarify and confirm that
rezoning a property to a WU Code Transect District does not eliminate any
regulatory requirement to comply with these zoning districts and plans.
To remove such a regulatory requirement, a property owner would be required to
follow all processes relevant to modifying that zoning district or plan. These
processes may include, but are not limited to, a text amendment to the
geographic applicability in the case of an overlay zoning district or a General
Plan Amendment in the case of a specific plan.
However, it should be noted that the creation of the WU Code was intended to
replace the Interim Transit-Oriented Zoning Overlay Districts One and Two
(TOD-1 and TOD-2). If a property owner applies to rezone a property designated
with TOD-1 or TOD-2 overlay zoning to a WU Code Transect District, a staff
recommendation of approval will include removal of the TOD-1 or TOD-2 overlay
zoning designation.
Page 302
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
The new language also clarifies that in the event of a conflict between the WU
Code and any overlay zoning district, redevelopment area, special planning
district, or specific plan, the requirements of these overlay districts and plans
shall apply. Due to the inclusion of this new language, the original proposed
language in Section 1301.C.2.b is proposed to shift to the new Section
1301.C.2.c.
Finally, this new language is also intended to eliminate potential perceived
conflicts between the proposed language in Section 1301.C.2.c which states that
if a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the remainder of
the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. The proposed language in Section 1301.C.2.c is intended to apply to
circumstances where a WU Code standard or guideline differs from a similar
standard or guideline elsewhere in the Zoning Ordinance. For example, the WU
Code has unique design guidelines that would prevail in the event of a conflict
with a related design guideline in Section 507, Tab A, Guidelines for Design
Review. However, as stated above this hierarchy does not apply to properties
with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning, overlay zoning districts, redevelopment
areas, special planning districts, or specific plans.
2. Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) – Section A.1.21
New language is proposed to add a $135.00 fee for administrative temporary use
permits (ATUP). An ATUP is required for uses including, but not limited to,
community or other special events on commercial properties, interim surface
parking, and temporary construction yards or staging areas. On July 6, 2011, the
Phoenix City Council approved Text Amendment Case No. Z-TA-2-08 and
adopted the related Ordinance No. G-5644 which modified regulations regarding
temporary permits and created the term “Administrative Temporary Use Permit”.
At that time, the term and related fee was not added to the Zoning Fee Schedule.
The $135.00 fee has been utilized since 2011 and no change is proposed to the
fee.
Correspondence: Also included in this Addendum as Exhibit B is one piece of
correspondence received by staff since the approval of the original staff report.
Senate Bill 1409: On May 11, 2021, the Arizona Governor approved Senate Bill 1409,
amending Section 9-462.01, relating to municipal zoning. This Bill requires the
legislative body of a municipality to consider the probable impact of any text amendment
on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent before adoption.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.01(J), staff has evaluated the probable impact of this zoning
text amendment on the cost to construct housing for sale or rent. Staff has found no
evidence that the proposed zoning ordinance text amendment will have any probable
and measurable impact on the construction costs of housing for sale or rent in Phoenix.
Page 303
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Proposed Language (8 pages)
Exhibit B: Correspondence (12 Pages)
Page 304
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule
Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Page 305
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
Page 306
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
Page 307
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
Page 308
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Page 309
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Page 310
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
Page 311
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
September 28, 2021
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
Page 312
EXHIBIT B
Adam Stranieri
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Estrella VPC
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2021 11:37 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in Estrella VPC
Good morning Enrique,
Sending this over with the hopes to include as public written comment for Estrella Village Planning Committee.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow
residents to live, enjoy community amenities and work in one place. Further, this advances many Estrella Village
Character Plan goals including:
1. "Communities should consist of a mix of land uses to provide housing, shopping, dining and recreational options
for residents."
2. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open space, shaded walkways,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised
structures or underground where feasible."
3. "Design and locate new neighborhoods to promote access (both physical and visual) to parks and open space.
New developments should also provide convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to transit stops, schools and
other neighborhood amenities."
4. "Lack of retail and restaurant options. As development activity increases throughout Estrella, the Village has a
growing need for more quality restaurants, retail and commercial services to serve its diverse and expanding
population."
5. "Lack of community amenities. The Estrella Village lacks quality public parks, bicycle lanes, and connectivity of
multi‐use trails and pathways. As residential development activity increases, it will be increasingly important to
provide these amenities for an expanding population. The Estrella Community should promote restoration of
access to amenities such as Tres Rios Wetlands."
6. "Diversifying the housing stock. Residential development in the Estrella Village is predominantly single‐family
detached units on smaller lots in the R1‐6 and R1‐8 zoning districts. There is a lack of diversity in the housing
stock and a particular lack of larger‐lot residential properties and multifamily options."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
Page 313
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase our housing supply and catch up with other
cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
‐‐
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 314
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Ahwatukee Foothills VPC
Date: Monday, July 26, 2021 12:45:07 PM
Good morning Enrique,
Just writing this to submit as written comments for tonight's Ahwatukee Foothills Village
Planning Committee if possible!
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. Beyond this, the WU Code expansion will address several
goals in the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Character Plan including:
1. "Design and locate new neighborhoods to promote access (both physical and visual) to
parks and open space. New developments should also provide convenient pedestrian and
bicycle access to transit stops, schools and other neighborhood amenities."
2. "Enhance Community Amenities. The Village must continue to promote enhancements
to its parks and recreational infrastructure. Public streetscapes throughout the Village
lack amenities that would make streets more appealing and promote walkability."
3. "Improve Pedestrian and Cyclist Safety. Many major arterials such as 48th Street,
Warner Road, Ray Road, Chandler Road and streets within the Village Core lack safe
infrastructure for pedestrians and bicyclists."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code.
Page 315
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 316
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Written Public Comments in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in Alhambra VPC
Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2021 8:01:37 AM
Good morning Nick,
Just writing to submit these public comments in support of Z-TA-3-19 in the Alhambra
Village Planning Committee.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. You in Alhambra are especially cognizant of these dynamics
with your Transit-Oriented Development plans. I'd also like to note this accomplishes goals in
the Alhambra Village Character Plan such as:
1. "Locate neighborhood retail to be easily accessible to neighborhoods."
2. "Encourage land uses that promote the growth of entrepreneurs or new businesses in
Phoenix in appropriate locations."
3. "Promote and encourage compatible infill development with a mix of housing types in
neighborhoods close to employment centers, commercial areas and where transit or
transportation alternatives exist."
4. "Develop land use and design regulations governing land close to transit centers and
light rail stations to maximize the potential for ridership."
5. "Integrate tree and shade into the design of new development and redevelopment
projects throughout Phoenix."
6. "Plan and design communities and neighborhoods to be pedestrian friendly and
walkable."
7. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking
and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures or underground where
feasible."
8. "Locate parking to the rear of a site to create a more pedestrian environment, when
adequate shielding from noise and light can be provided to adjacent established
neighborhoods. On-street parking in some areas may also promote a pedestrian
environment."
9. "Plan, design, and develop pedestrian linkages between parks, open spaces, village
cores, neighborhood shopping centers, neighborhood schools, and neighboring
municipalities."
10. "Support Mixed Use Development Opportunities. Mixed Use development opportunities
can be found throughout the Village, especially close to light rail. These opportunities
Page 317
should be supported to provide additional services and housing choices to those that live
or work in the area."
11. "Encourage Multimodal Connectivity with Emphasis on Bikeability and Walkability.
Projects in the Alhambra Village should be designed to focus on alternative modes of
transportation to encourage use by all residents."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase
our housing supply and catch up with other cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder
actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 318
Adam Stranieri
From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:24 AM
To: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19
For case file-
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers)
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:13 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19
Good morning Sofia,
Just writing to submit a public comment in support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in tonight's Camelback East VPC.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow
residents to live, enjoy community amenities and work in one place. This additionally meets several of the goals in the
Camelback East Character Plan including:
1. "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."
2. "Plan, design and develop pedestrian linkages between parks, open spaces, village cores, neighborhood
shopping centers, neighborhood schools and neighboring municipalities."
3. "Maintain shaded streetscapes and promote detached sidewalks. While there are many areas within the Village
that exhibit walkable shaded environments there are other areas where this environment is lacking. Shaded
streetscapes and detached sidewalks should be encouraged whenever possible."
4. "Promote shade and sustainability features with private development. More effort should be made to promote
multimodal transportation and green building. Developments are encouraged to provide bicycle parking, shaded
pedestrian pathways, recycling services and application of sustainable materials."
Page 319
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase our housing supply and catch up with other
cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 320
Adam Stranieri
From: Julianna Pierre
Sent: Monday, August 9, 2021 10:47 AM
To: Adam Stranieri
Subject: FW: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19
Hi Adam,
I didn’t see a place in the text amendment folder for support letters, but I did receive the email below.
Thank you,
Julianna Pierre, Planner II – Village Planner
Office: 602-534-5829
► Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 11:20 AM
To: Julianna Pierre
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z‐TA‐3‐19
Good morning Julianna,
Just writing to submit a public comment in support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 in tonight's Desert View VPC.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z‐TA‐3‐19. This is a small step forward in making
sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly livable for the future.
Z‐TA‐3‐19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the City of Phoenix's current
Transit Oriented Districts. Communities and the Village Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the
zoning of the property is, but this does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form‐based and designed to encourage the walkability of property. This is especially useful
for the village cores that are designated in your character plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and that you have
designated as a place to cluster high density in your Village Character Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy
community amenities and work in one place. This meets other goals in the Desert View Character Plan including:
1. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open space, shaded walkways,
separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking, and vehicle parking in architecturally disguidesd
structures or underground where feasible."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called for in the Housing
Phoenix Plan.
Page 321
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas emissions that affect our
increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse gases is a goal of the city and likely to be
included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less water pipelines, electrical
power lines and streets are required to serve more people in denser developments providing more tax revenue.
This is fiscally stronger than spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people.
See Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z‐TA‐3‐19 and that you ask staff how we can improve the
implementation of the Walkable Urban Code.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or our support for these
kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 322
From: Ryan Boyd
To: Nick Klimek
Subject: Public Comment in Support of Z-TA-3-19 in North Mountain VPC
Date: Wednesday, July 21, 2021 10:47:07 AM
Good morning Nick,
Sending this over to submit as public comment for the North Mountain VPC on Z-TA-3-19.
I write to you to express the support of the Urban Phoenix Project for Z-TA-3-19. This is
a small step forward in making sure Phoenix is a place that is accessible, vibrant and frankly
livable for the future.
Z-TA-3-19 provides the OPTION of rezoning to the Walkable Urban Code outside of the
Planning Committees like yourself still determine what the zoning of the property is, but this
does not arbitrarily eliminate options from the start.
The Walkable Urban Code is form-based and designed to encourage the walkability of
property. This is especially useful for the village cores that are designated in your character
plan and the 2015 Phoenix General Plan. These cores allow residents to live, enjoy community
amenities and work in one place. This further aligns with North Mountain planning goals such
as:
1. "Cores, centers and corridors to be configured in a walkable manner and include a
variety of land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and cultural, housing, hotel
and resort, and where appropriate, some types of industry."
2. "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."
3. "Encourage centers to provide a pedestrian environment with plazas, common open
space, shaded walkways, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, bicycle parking,
and vehicle parking in architecturally disguised structures or underground where
feasible."
4. "Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development and redevelopment
projects throughout Phoenix."
5. "Design public infrastructure to include pedestrian and bicycle amenities."
6. "Develop transit facilities in appropriate cores, centers and corridors to facilitate trip
reductions and use of mass transit."
7. "Promote development in compact cores, centers and corridors that are connected by
roads and transit, and are designed to encourage walking and bicycling."
8. "Revitalizing commercial centers. There are a number of commercial centers in the
Village that have the opportunity to revitalize and develop into more attractive places
for residents to shop."
9. "Promote local connectivity (walking and biking). While there are more public transit
options in the area, there is an opportunity to increase the connectivity of bike lanes and
develop more walkable communities."
The benefits to accomplishing these goals are innumerable and include:
1. Walkable communities and denser housing options provide affordable options as called
Page 323
for in the Housing Phoenix Plan.
2. Walkability promotes alternatives to driving which is a driver of greenhouse gas
emissions that affect our increasingly hot summers. Reducing the release of greenhouse
gases is a goal of the city and likely to be included in the future Climate Action Plan.
3. Walkable communities allow for more efficient construction of infrastructure. Less
water pipelines, electrical power lines and streets are required to serve more people in
denser developments providing more tax revenue. This is fiscally stronger than
spreading out further where more infrastructure is required to serve less people. See
Strong Towns examples [actionlab.strongtowns.org].
For these reasons, I would ask for your support of Z-TA-3-19 and that you ask staff how we
can improve the implementation of the Walkable Urban Code or other solutions to increase
our housing supply and catch up with other cities like Minneapolis [slate.com] taking bolder
actions to increase housing supply.
Please feel free to ask our organization if you have any questions about the text amendment or
our support for these kinds of solutions.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602-799-4478
Director of Communications, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
Page 324
Attachment D
Application No. Z-TA-3-19
Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c;
Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A, 1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table
1310.1 of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide; and amend
Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to update fees.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Date Recommendation Vote
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/26/2021 (No quorum) 10/25/2021 Approval with a modification to 6-4-1
8/23/2021 (No quorum) expand only to high capacity transit
9/27/2021 corridors.
Alhambra 7/27/2021 10/26/2021 Denial 13-3-0
Camelback East 8/3/2021 10/5/2021 Denial 10-2
Central City 7/12/2021 10/11/2021 Approval 10-3
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 10/14/2021 Denial 4-3-1
Desert View 7/13/2021 (No quorum) 10/5/2021 Denial 6-1
8/3/2021
Encanto 7/12/2021 10/4/2021 Denial 8-0
Estrella 7/20/2021 10/19/2021 Denial 7-0
Laveen 7/12/2021 10/11/2021 Approval with a modification to 8-0
expand only to Villlage Cores and
high capacity transit corridors.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 10/13/2021 Approval 6-2
North Gateway 8/12/2021 10/14/2021 Denial 4-0
North Mountain 7/21/2021 10/20/2021 Approval 11-2-2
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 10/4/2021 Approval 16-0
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 10/12/2021 Denial 3-2
South Mountain 7/13/2021 10/12/2021 Denial 5-4-1
Page 325
Attachment E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting September 27, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION:
No requests to speak from the public were received on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family attached
related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU code and
other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus standards,
clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A related to fee
schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for
charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was
provided.
Darin Fisher asked if the committee would receive more information ahead of the
next meeting.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that additional information will be provided before the
next committee meeting.
Scott Crouch asked if Addendum A of the staff report will be shared with the
committee before the next meeting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 326
Mr. Bojórquez responded that information will be provided to the committee ahead
of the next meeting.
Chairman Elliott discussed the text amendment and stated that staff will be sharing
additional information regarding the text amendment before the next meeting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 327
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 27, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No speaker cards were received
At this time, Solorio arrived bringing to quorum to 14 members (13 being required for a
quorum)
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Adams asked if the expansion will increase density (directly or indirectly) noting that an
additional 2,000 units of multifamily are proposed at Christown Spectrum Mall.
• Klimek stated that this text amendment does not rezone any property and that,
like cases requesting traditional zoning districts, that all cases are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis and go through three public hearings.
Page 328
Adams, noting that the purpose of the expansion is to increase density, asked if there is
a study infrastructure capacity such as water, sewer, schools, police, fire, and hospital
beds.
• Klimek responded that all rezoning cases are routed to interdepartmental
reviewers for comment on capacity in addition to being sent to the school
districts, APS, and SRP. The WU Code is not a single high-density zone but
rather a series of intensities called transects that can be applied to the
appropriate context.
Ammon noted that the pedestrian- and transit- orientation of the Walkable Urban Code
should produce an environment that does not require as much vehicle parking. He
asked if there has been thought in the text amendment to reducing parking
requirements for commercial development.
• Klimek responded that the text amendment does not modify many of the
regulations in the WU Code such as parking requirements. He added that the
WU Code does allow for parking reductions when applied within ¼ and ½ mile of
a light rail station and that the base parking standards are entirely contained in
Section 13 (WU Code) and include some reduced standards from those
contained in Section 702 which apply to all other zoning districts. Ammon
expressed support for reduced vehicle parking requirements.
Solorio noted that there are currently discrepancies in the Single Family Attached
Development Option especially in the WU Code. He expressed interest in those specific
modifications and requested the proposed language.
• Klimek agreed to send.
• Solorio added that this expansion will create an important tool for small scale
and affordable housing production which is especially important because of the
current housing supply and affordability crisis currently facing the city.
Bryck stated that he supports housing production and that the city needs it because
rents are becoming increasingly unattainable. He stated that the intent of the
ReinventPHX Plans were to fill-in the light rail corridors and expressed concerns that
the expansion will: justify density in areas without good transit; will draw development
attention away from high capacity transit; will not support the creation of “missing middle
housing” products such as townhomes and accessory dwelling units; and will only
benefit the institutional developers with the time and money to withstand a long rezoning
process.
He added that this process is moving quickly and is glad to see elements of the Housing
Phoenix Plan being implemented. He asked that the legalization of Accessory Dwelling
Units be prioritized with equal speed. He stated that he would like to see more nuance
to the text amendment such as a requirement to make the WU Code only eligible within
¼ or ½ mile of light rail or a Village Core. He added that he doesn’t believe the text
amendment gives enough power to staff or the VPC to deter situations where the WU
Code is not appropriate.
Page 329
Adams concurred with Bryck.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
None.
Page 330
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 3, 2021
Request From Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment, which
would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code citywide. She
explained that currently, only properties along the light rail corridors are eligible to
request this form-based zoning district, and that the proposal would allow for properties
that are not along the light rail to request WU Code zoning. She outlined the proposed
changes to the Zoning Ordinance and noted that the text amendment initiation language
includes reference to changing minimum acreage requirements for charter schools –
this will not be addressed in this text amendment.
Chair Jay Swart asked how staff will ensure that none of the charter school language is
included when this proposal returns to the committee for a vote. Mastikhina explained
that the text amendment proposal includes an exhibit outlining all of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance content changes, so the committee will have an opportunity to review
exactly what will be modified.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 331
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sarah Stockham, staff, reviewed the Walkable Urban Code history, Housing Phoenix
Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-oriented design, and no density
limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code transects. Ms. Stockham added that the
WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on design and providing
a greater diversity of housing options, the WU code prioritizes walkability, pedestrian
infrastructure and shade and showed examples of various frontage types. Ms.
Stockham clarified what the proposed text amendment does and does not accomplish
and described the various sections of the code which are proposed to be amended
pertaining to the removal of geographic restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design
review criteria, single-family attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify
relationship between WU code and other code sections, clarification on building
frontage types plus standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending
Appendix A related to fee schedules. Ms. Stockham concluded that this text
amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for charter schools at this
time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was provided.
Eva Olivas asked for clarification on the proposed addition to the fee schedule. Ms.
Stockham replied that the interim fees used by staff will be codified in into the fee
schedule table, and that they are not proposed to increase or decrease from their
current rate.
Ryan Boyd shared that while he likes the idea of expanding the option of WU Code
zoning, he asked the committee if other parts of the code should be updated for the
times.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 332
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 2
Chris Colyer replied that was a great question and that some issues with the code
might be site specific, but he will think about his experience with WU Code projects and
supports the text amendment.
Darlene Martinez thanked Mr. Boyd for this question and for Mr. Colyer for his
response, understanding that some conflicts with the code might be site-specific.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 333
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text
amendment, which would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code citywide. He explained that currently, only properties along the light rail
corridors are eligible to request this form-based zoning district, and that the
proposal would allow for properties that are not along the light rail to request WU
Code zoning. He outlined the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance and
noted that the text amendment initiation language includes reference to changing
minimum acreage requirements for charter schools – this will not be addressed in
this text amendment.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked if light rail is being considered for the Deer
Valley Village area.
Mr. Simmons shared that light rail options are not currently being considered for
the Deer Valley Village area. Mr. Simmons also shared that this request would
provide an alternative zoning application option to prospective applicants.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 334
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting August 3, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee members Joseph Barto and Jill Hankins arrived to the meeting during
this item, bringing the quorum to 9 members.
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the
creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding WU Code. She
explained the existing WU code boundaries and transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding
references to newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text
amendment will remove geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property
owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update standards regarding single
family attached residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that
the text amendment will not automatically rezone any property or modify the
rezoning process. She also provided a summary of the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule,
will establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will
not change any non-WU Code fees.
Committee member Rick Powell asked how allowing WU Code throughout the
entire City would affect neighborhoods with Historic Preservation (HP)
designation. Julianna Pierre stated that properties with HP designation would
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 335
still be subject to the HP section of the Zoning Ordinance and the applicant would
need to correspond with the City’s HP Office.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that the analysis for future Transit
Oriented Districts (TOD) should include distance to parks. Julianna Pierre
stated that she would pass that recommendation along to the staff working on the
text amendment.
Committee member Rick Nowell asked if there would be new information
presented on this item at the next meeting. Julianna Pierre stated that there
may be new information. She added that staff members working on the text
amendment are taking comments and concerns from the Village Planning
Committee (VPC) members prior to coming back for recommendation.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked for clarification regarding
transects and the rezoning process. Julianna Pierre explained that since the
process to rezone to WU Code would be the same as any other rezoning,
applicants and developers would receive feedback from staff about the
appropriateness of certain transects.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that WU code makes sense to keep mobility
and modernity in the core of the City. He added that this could be helpful since
walkability could be better throughout Phoenix.
Committee member Rick Powell asked for clarification regarding transects.
Julianna Pierre explained the twelve transect districts and how those districts
vary in intensity. Committee member Rick Powell asked why WU Code should
be permitted in Desert View. Julianna Pierre explained that even at lower
densities, WU Code would promote pedestrian oriented design with improved
walkability, infrastructure, and shade. Committee member Rick Powell stated
that WU Code made sense near transit, but not in Desert View. He added that
this seemed like a way for developers to push higher density. Committee
member Michelle Santoro stated that if WU Code was utilized in Desert View,
the City would assess the appropriate transect for the area.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave asked for clarification about the WU Code frontage
types. Julianna Pierre explained the different frontage types and showed
imagery from Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. She added that each transect
would permit certain frontage types. Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that the
frontage types are not compatible with the City or with the southwest character.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that the frontage types provide shade
and create an outside-inside design, which is conducive to the southwest.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he was concerned with the
idea of allowing WU Code City wide. He added that this is an opportunity for the
City to bring in density which will result in additional traffic, congestion, and
people.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 336
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
One speaker card was received on this item in support with the individual wishing to
speak.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Vice Chair Bryck asked if the proposed text amendment had been provided.
• Klimek responded that it will be provided with the staff report which is currently in
development.
Chairman Kleinman asked whether the development community is driving the request
and who initiated the text amendment. Searles echoed the question about who is
driving the text amendment.
Page 337
• Klimek responded that this was initiated by the Planning Commission at the
request of the City Council and the Planning and Development Department. He
added that the expansion of the Walkable Urban Code had been in discussion for
years.
Chairman Kleinman asked how this would apply to a project such as the Country Club
tower.
• Klimek responded that the Walkable Urban Code would have been an option for
the Country Club proposal but that an analysis of policy would still need to
support the scale proposed. He added that the provisions of the WU Code would
require compliant frontage types on both public streets.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mitchell Willard introduced himself as the Director of Development for the Urban
Phoenix Project and voiced their support for the text amendment on the basis that it will
allow private property owners to increase to improve the quality of life across the city
through benefits such as increase shade and bringing the parents of the street which
would not only benefit developers, but also the community at large. By promoting shade
and walkability in private developments, the expansion of the code is one tool to get the
city walking, bicycling, and using transit in their city. On a larger scale, he noted that a
more flexible code that focuses on creating a high-quality pedestrian environment with
opportunities for mixed-use will support affordability.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
The committee discussed the proposal with the following highlights.
Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code will:
• only benefit institutional builders;
• dilute the incentive of focusing development along light rail corridors;
• not help create missing-middle housing;
• not make sense because it was written to facilitate transit oriented development
and this expansion will allow those incentive standards without transit;
Support that the expansion of the WU Code on the basis that it
• should accommodate transit-oriented development only along light rail including
the new lines, but not be expanded city-wide;
Additional comments:
• The requirements of the rezoning process exclude small owners and developers
necessary to create missing middle housing. Incentives should be targeted to
support missing middle housing through small, non-institutional builders.
Page 338
• The WU Code was intended to be narrowly focused around light rail and should
remain focused around major public investments in transit.
• The WU Code allows for more negotiation which is good and bad.
Page 339
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 20, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
No requests to speak from members of the public were received.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family attached
related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU code and
other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus standards,
clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A related to fee
schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage limitations for
charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment case was
provided.
Lisa Perez has concerns over expanding WU code in some parts of the city,
especially areas along the western edge of the Estrella Village. She supports the
WU code, but wants to make sure that the expansion areas are appropriate.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 340
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment, which
would expand the applicability of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code citywide. She
explained that currently, only properties along the light rail corridors are eligible to
request this form-based zoning district, and that the proposal would allow for properties
that are not along the light rail to request WU Code zoning. She outlined the proposed
changes to the Zoning Ordinance and noted that the text amendment initiation language
includes reference to changing minimum acreage requirements for charter schools –
this will not be addressed in this text amendment.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Dan Penton asked if staff can provide a workshop to committee and community
members to provide a more in-depth explanation of the WU Code, as it is not something
that Laveen has dealt with before. He asked if this text amendment would make it
applicable to Laveen. Mastikhina replied yes, a workshop can be arranged, and
explained that, if this text amendment is approved, the WU Code zoning would be
applicable citywide. However, it does not automatically change individual properties’
zoning designations. A property owner would still need to go through the regular
rezoning process to request WU Code zoning, just like any other zoning district.
Cory Kinkaid, with the Urban Phoenix Project, explained the goal of his organization,
which is to help Phoenix become a city where walking, biking, and transit are
comfortable and convenient options. He expressed support for the text amendment,
stating that it would greatly improve walkability throughout the city.
COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Robert Branscomb asked staff to explain the committee that reviews WU Code
applications, and if they provide a recommendation to the City Council on these types of
developments. Mastikhina replied that there is one committee, the Design Review
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 341
Committee, which reviews and approves applications for design alternatives that
deviate from the standards set forth in the WU Code. They review to ensure that the
intent of creating a walkable urban fabric is upheld via proposed design alternatives.
They are also a quasi-judicial hearing body, much like the Zoning Adjustment Hearing
Officer, and their decision is final. If appealed, the case will ultimately go to the Arizona
Supreme Court.
Chair Tonya Glass expressed her support for the proposal and asked if there will also
be development of corridor plans to aid in achieving the architectural aesthetic that the
community wants for Laveen. Mastikhina replied that this is a great idea, and that
subsequent plans and policies following the adoption of this text amendment, as they
relate to the appropriateness of a form-based code depending on individual village
character, is something that staff may pursue.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 342
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 14, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sarah Stockham, staff, reviewed the Walkable Urban Code history, Housing Phoenix
Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-oriented design, and no density
limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code transects. Ms. Stockham added that the
WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on design and providing
a greater diversity of housing options, the WU code prioritizes walkability, pedestrian
infrastructure and shade and showed examples of various frontage types. Ms.
Stockham clarified what the proposed text amendment does and does not accomplish
and described the various sections of the code which are proposed to be amended
pertaining to the removal of geographic restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design
review criteria, single-family attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify
relationship between WU code and other code sections, clarification on building
frontage types plus standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending
Appendix A related to fee schedules. Ms. Stockham concluded that this text amendment
does not propose minimum acreage limitations for charter schools at this time, and a
timeline of the text amendment case was provided.
Sandra Oviedo asked how they could bring the Walkable Urban Code projects to
Maryvale, what is the incentive to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code and if this will
require the installation of bike lanes. Ms. Stockham replied that this text amendment
does not rezone any property outright, but it allows property owners the option to rezone
to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, the installation of bike lanes for a project is done
with the collaboration of the Street Transportation Department and one of the incentives
is the no limit on density for Walkable Urban Code projects.
Chair Gene Derie clarified that this text amendment would allow the Walkable Urban
Code as an option for rezoning requests.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 343
Mike Weber shared that he had observed many stucco-covered communities near light
rail which do not appear to be architecturally-design focused and while there are bicycle
lanes in the Valley they are rarely used because street conditions are unsafe.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 344
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting August 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning
Ordinance regarding WU Code. She explained the existing WU code boundaries and
transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing Phoenix
Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding references to
newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text amendment will remove
geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU
Code, and update standards regarding single family attached residential development
outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically
rezone any property or modify the rezoning process. She also provided a summary of
the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule, will
establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will not change
any non-WU Code fees.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 345
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 21, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
No speaker cards were received
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the request that would allow the Walkable Urban
Code (WU Code) to be utilized city-wide and will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and the Tree and Shade Master Plan. The WU Code emphasizes the
form of development, is designed to be more flexible, to better accommodate a mix of
uses, and to create a better built environment. When created, the WU Code was
envisioned to apply only within approximately one-half mile of light rail and was
therefore geographically restricted to only the areas planned through ReinventPHX.
Since that time, the light rail has expanded and the newly served areas have not been
able to use the WU Code. Additionally, there have been development proposals where
the WU Code would have been the best tool in areas such as village cores and new
light rail corridors. There have been several projects that have sought a Planned Unit
Development which defers broadly to the WU Code so the application of the form-based
code is not unprecedented outside of light rail corridors. The text amendment will return
to the Village Planning at a future meeting for recommendation.
QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None.
STAFF RESPONSE
None.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Krentz thanked Klimek for the presentation.
Page 346
At this time, Veidmark and Herrera arrived bringing the quorum to 16 members (11
being required for a quorum).
Page 347
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
INFORMATION ONLY
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting July 12, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the WU Code came to fruition in the first place. He went over
what this Text Amendment request would update to include the expansion on
the WU Code boundaries, amendment of the zoning fee schedule, and minimum
acreage limitations for Charter Schools. Mr. Simmons elaborated on why
expanding the WU-Code boundaries would help the growth of the City of
Phoenix. He shared that it would support the Housing Phoenix Plan, it would
promote pedestrian oriented design and set no limit on dwelling unit density.
Further, Mr. Simmons shared that the Kierland area has largely redeveloped
through PUD rezoning requests, which utilize WU-Code standards in the PUD
narratives. Mr. Simmons also went over WU-Code design standards, which
focus on design rather than land use, a form based code. Mr. Simmons shared
the hearing schedule with the committee, stating that this will come back in front
of them for recommendation in the near term.
VPC Response:
No discussion
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 348
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Committee member Scott Lawrence arrived to the meeting during this item,
bringing the quorum to 5 members.
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code. She provided a brief history of the
creation of Chapter 13 of the Zoning Ordinance regarding WU Code. She
explained the existing WU code boundaries and transects.
Julianna Pierre explained that Z-TA-3-19 will support the goals of the Housing
Phoenix Plan and prevent the need for future amendments to continue adding
references to newly approved TOD policy plans. She stated that the text
amendment will remove geographic restrictions on WU Code, allow property
owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update standards regarding single
family attached residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that
the text amendment will not automatically rezone any property or modify the
rezoning process. She also provided a summary of the proposed changes to the
Zoning Ordinance.
Julianna Pierre discussed that amendments to Appendix A, the fee schedule,
will establish the administrative fees for requests to rezone to WU code, but will
not change any non-WU Code fees.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked how developers would know what
transect to apply for. Julianna Pierre explained that since the process to rezone
to WU Code would be the same as any other rezoning, applicants and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 349
developers would receive feedback from staff about the appropriateness of
requests during the Rezoning Pre-Application meeting. She added that there will
be public and Committee member input during the rezoning process, as with any
other rezoning case.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked for clarification regarding the
expansion of the WU Code and the rezoning process. Julianna Pierre
explained that the expansion would not automatically rezone any properties. She
stated that WU Code rezoning cases would be handled on a case by case basis.
She added that location, existing density, and existing infrastructure could all be
factors that influence appropriateness of a request.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 350
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
INFORMATION ONLY
Date of VPC Meeting July 13, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
One member of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided an informational
presentation regarding case Z-TA-3-19. The need for this text amendment arises
from the Housing Phoenix Plan goals, growing number of TOD areas, pedestrian-
oriented design, and no density limitations part of Walkable Urban (WU) code
transects. The WU code is a form-based code that places a greater emphasis on
design and providing a greater diversity of housing options. The WU code prioritizes
walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade plus thermal comfort. Examples of
various frontage types, walkability, pedestrian infrastructure and shade were
provided. Clarification on what the proposed text amendment does and does not
accomplish were provided. A description the various sections of the code which are
proposed to be amended were provided pertaining to removal of geographic
restrictions, clarification of policy plans, design review criteria, single-family
attached related changes, shading requirements, clarify relationship between WU
code and other code sections, clarification on building frontage types plus
standards, clarification of open space requirements, and amending Appendix A
related to fee schedules. This text amendment does not propose minimum acreage
limitations for charter schools at this time, and a timeline of the text amendment
case was provided.
Gene Holmerud asked if this text amendment is going to be presented to all the
Village Planning Committees (VPC’s).
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this text amendment case is to be presented to all
the VPC’s in the next few weeks.
Marcia Busching stated that expanding the Walkable Urban (WU) code is good,
but she is concerned with allow it citywide. WU code should be limited along arterial
streets.
Page 351
Trent Marchuk asked if the regulations in the Overlay Districts would prevail over
WU code.
Mr. Bojórquez stated that his understanding is that regulatory Overlay Districts
would prevail over WU code zoning.
Joseph Larios asked on the input from the other VPC’s regarding this text
amendment case.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this is just the second night where the text
amendment is presented to a VPC.
Shelly Smith asked how the city will address existing infrastructure and can the city
require existing properties to conform to new requirements.
Gene Holmerud discussed the concept of grandfathered entitlements and difficulty
with requiring new improvements unless safety is at risk.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if there is a city department or budget set aside to
build new sidewalks or rehabilitate existing ones in parts of the city.
Mr. Bojórquez stated that he is not directly involved in related efforts but imagines
that once a project is approved by the city, it is very difficult to require additional
improvements to a specific property once this has been okayed to operate. He is
not knowledgeable on the specific budget items within the overall city budget, but
imagines there is funding for maintenance or repair of infrastructure, including
sidewalks.
Lee Coleman stated that new sidewalks are being installed in his neighborhood,
and it is difficult to require additional improvements after the city approves a project.
Mr. Marchuk asked about the 5-percent open space requirement and if new parks
would be developed throughout the city to accommodate for new residents.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the 5-percent open space requirement is the same
as currently required for multifamily uses in conventional zoning districts. He added
that the Parks and Recreation Department has identified proposed park sites in a
city wide plan.
Fatima Said asked if there is an incentive to developers to use WU code zoning
and stated that the Chicanos Por La Causa rezoning PUD case should be
considered as this project is displacing residents.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that WU code zoning does not have a density cap and
requires enhanced street frontages that will help improve a project.
Page 352
Greg Brownell stated that there is no real incentive for developers and does not
foresee new park sites being built in the future.
Chairwoman Daniels likes WU code due to potential economic development
opportunities and could see new projects being built along the Rio Salado and
between 7th Avenue to 7th Street. She agrees that no new park sites will likely be
built in the South Mountain Village.
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and discussed two
questions that he had regarding this text amendment case:
• Are there any land uses allowed today that would be considered legally non-
conforming if this text amendment is approved?
• Will the rezoning process to seek WU code allow for public input?
Chairwoman Daniels thanked Mr. Paulin and asked staff for clarification on the
questions.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that this text amendment case does not affect individual
properties, only properties that would be seeking rezoning in the future. He also
mentioned that public input will remain part of the rezoning process, including for
WU code zoning.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
On July 23, 2021 staff sent an email to all member of the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee correcting the statement made during the July 13, 2021 meeting
regarding Overlay Districts superseding the Walkable Urban (WU) code zoning. Staff
clarified that the WU code zoning will supersede regulatory Overlay Districts which are
present on any specific property in regards to applicable development standards.
Page 353
Attachment F
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 25, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation in Addendum A
with modifications
Vote 6-4-1, motion passed; Members Benezra, Crouch,
Meier, Pritchette, Gasparro and Elliott in favor; Members
Fisher, Maloney, Sharer and Symes in dissent. Member
Holt abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Three members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU Code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the city.
He discussed elements of the WU Code which prioritize the pedestrian environment
and explained the transect district acronym plus unique development standards.
Examples of what each transect district could look like were provided. This proposal
would allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards
regarding single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal
does not rezone any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does
not modify the applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD
District plans. Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of regulatory
overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An
overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was
provided. Staff recommends approval per Addendum A of the staff report and
discussed the schedule for this case.
Chairman Elliott asked for committee member questions or comments from the
public.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 354
Neal Haddad, member of the public, stated that this text amendment case is putting
the cart before the horse, as the concept does not work without having a transect map.
A vision document like the General Plan that incorporates citizen input is needed for
this vision. This case has a generational impact, and VPC members should not be
forced into deciding without understanding this better. Other VPC’s have denied this
request and requests that this committee also vote to deny this case.
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, stated that this text amendment is better suited
for TOD areas like the original WU Code applicability boundary. There was no public
input on this proposal, which allows parking waivers without imposing a cap on density.
He wonders who will decide on what WU Code transect is appropriate citywide.
Homeowners are left wondering where development will happen and will have to battle
each project with an applicant’s attorney regarding the density. Eight Village Planning
Committees have denied this case and asked the committee to deny the request too.
Alex Benezra stated that a walkable street was designed to resemble something like
the Miracle Mile corridor along McDowell Road. He asked the speaker on what a
walkable street should look like.
Mr. Paulin responded that if staff provided more details on the request, there might be
areas where this could be appropriate. McDowell Road is not a walkable street and
discussed the corridor. This is an issue largely of encouraging higher density in
neighborhoods.
Mr. Benezra asked if this proposal seems to be ahead of where the city is at now.
Mr. Paulin responded that the issue is cramming density into established
neighborhoods. The city needs housing and discussed the original proposal for the WU
Code which limited the applicability areas along light rail transit.
Ryan Boyd, member of the public, supports this text amendment which will allow WU
Code as an option citywide. He stated that all can agree that at a minimum WU Code is
appropriate along TOD areas, but there are other areas where it could be appropriate.
There was lots of public input during the Housing Phoenix Plan adoption, which
discussed the potential expansion of WU Code. This allows for a wide range of housing
options through various transects which are not all high intensity transects.
Mike Maloney asked staff for clarification on why this text amendment case is being
requested. Mr. Bojórquez responded that this case is being requested for two
primary reasons including the expansion of mass-transit corridors throughout the
city. Also, WU Code will allow for the various forms of housing types.
Chairman Elliott asked staff for clarification on the applicability for this text
amendment case. Mr. Bojórquez responded by discussed the staff
recommendation found in Addendum A of the staff report, which proposes to allow
WU Code citywide. However, the Village Planning Committee may impose a
geographic restriction to limit the applicability of WU Code to areas such as Village
Cores and/or mass-transit corridors, among other recommendations.
Darin Fisher asked for clarification of how the WU Code would affect the Village.
Mr. Bojórquez responded this text amendment case would allow property owners to
rezone to WU Code across the city or based on the geographic restrictions if
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 355
imposed by the committee. He discussed the location of the Ahwatukee Foothills
Village Core.
Darin Fisher stated that the Village Core along 48th Street and Ray Road is one of
the most dangerous intersections in the Ahwatukee Foothills Village for pedestrians.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the committee could limit this text amendment only to
apply along mass-transit corridors if Village Cores were a concern.
Mr. Benezra agrees with Mr. Fisher regarding the Ahwatukee Foothills Village Core
being a dangerous location for more pedestrians. He would love Phoenix to be more
walkable and feels that there are areas of the city where WU Code could be more
appropriate.
Chairman Elliott asked for further discussion or a motion on this item.
MOTION:
Mr. Benezra motioned to approve case Z-TA-3-19 per the staff recommendation in
Addendum A of the staff report, with a modification that restricts the applicability
area of the WU Code to only along mass-transit corridors. Mr. Meier seconded the
motion.
VOTE:
6-4-1, motion passed; Members Benezra, Crouch, Meier, Pritchette, Gasparro and
Elliott in favor; Members Fisher, Maloney, Sharer and Symes in dissent. Member
Holt abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 356
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 26, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts and administrative temporary use
permits.
Recommendation Deny
Vote: 13-3-0, motion passes with: Adams, Ammon, Bryck,
DeGraffenreid, Ender, Fitzgerald, Harris, Jones, Krietor,
LeBlanc, Malkoon, McCabe, and Smith in support;
Keyser, Solorio, and Chair Shore in dissent; and none in
abstention.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ammon arrived bringing the quorum to 16 members (11 being required for a
quorum).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July. The input received from the
informational sessions was studied and the staff recommendation was revised in
Addendum A which is now before the committee for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half
mile from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s
form-based approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors,
such as village cores and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes
geographic constraints and would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU
Code city-wide. The request does not rezone any property, modify any process,
or modify any existing policy plan or standard. The language proposed in
Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to clarify how the WU Code will
interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in
different contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on
Page 357
trees, shade, and human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU
Code expansion would proliferate high-density development throughout the city
but explained that this is a misconception because there are existing zoning tools
that allow high density development in areas where the WU Code is not currently
an option, including Planned Unit Developments. While certain WU Code
Transects allow for high density, these transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented
requirements that are not required in alternative high-density options. The
rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two meetings with staff,
one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused on
determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by
stating that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear
before the Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Adams expressed concern that this will allow intensity where it doesn’t below
and asked staff if the request is motivated by a desire to increase revenue.
Klimek stated that the request doesn’t rezone any property and doesn’t change
any process, thereby not a tactic to increase development activity. Where
appropriate, the WU Code will produce a better built environment and the
purpose of the TA is to allow it as another tool.
LeBlanc asked why other committees have opposed the request. Klimek
responded that several have expressed concern about how the WU Code will be
implemented outside of light rail corridors, about how it should be limited to light
rail corridors only, and others felt there should have been more public
engagement.
Malkoon noted that he has seen several WU Code projects that appear to have
gotten out of their requirement for detached sidewalks including at the northwest
corner of Central Avenue and Indian School Road. Explaining how important it is
for pedestrian safety, he asked how developers are avoiding these requirements
in WU Code. Klimek responded that shaded and detached sidewalks are
required by the WU Code, that he does not have information regarding the
project referenced but explained that there is a provision that allows for attached
sidewalks if a utility conflict exists.
Ender asked if multi-story buildings are permitted to build anywhere within one-
half mile of light rail. Klimek responded that the WU Code is not granted to any
property by-right without a rezoning process, only that in the original
ReinventPHX Planning Areas, an applicant can request to use the WU Code if
they desire but they would still need to go through the rezoning process. Ender
expressed concern that the request may have unintended consequences and the
TA does not offer sufficient protections.
Page 358
Jones expressed concern regarding the likelihood for unintended consequences
on areas such as North Central or Arcadia and that this city-wide expansion
would open the floodgates to high density requests. He asked staff for the best
argument in support. Klimek responded that there are areas outside of the areas
currently served by light rail where WU Code would be the best tool, including
additional high-capacity transit corridors and village cores.
Fitzgerald stated that this is a one-size fits all approach that will make it easier
for developers to max-out their entitlements and will be voting no because it
gives the city and the developers too much flexibility.
Bryck stated that he supports housing development especially missing middle
products, but the WU Code was written explicitly to accompany the ReinventPHX
plans which had significant public engagement to thoughtfully map each property
with a recommended transect. In these areas, the WU Code was intended as an
incentive to fill in underutilized parcels with development and that he is
concerned the expansion will draw development away from where it is needed
and where it was planned through ReinventPHX before the core is built-out.
Ammon echoed Bryck’s comments. He asked what isn’t working that makes this
TA necessary such as processes or districts that need to be modified or
replaced. He also asked where he can find materials to gain a much deeper
understand of this and its potential implications. Klimek responded that some of
the existing zoning tools are not adaptable to the diverse contexts of the city and
the WU Code was specifically written for areas that have or desire a walkable
urban form, such as 19North, South Central, or the village cores. For a deeper
understanding, he recommended the staff reports as the most thorough analysis
available at this time.
Keyser sought to confirm the following: the TA does not rezone property; the TA
does not change any processes; and the TA does not change development
policy to support intensity at the interior of neighborhood. Klimek confirmed.
Keyser stated that the WU Code contains many elements that the community
wants and that the VPC often stipulates including shaded and detached
sidewalks which was urgently needed. Instead of a handout to developers, he
stated that this feels like it will create better built environments in areas most
appropriate for intensity, such as arterial streets. Klimek stated that while people
often think of intensity when they think of development, there have been two
good examples of two- and three – story infill development projects in the
Encanto Village. These projects utilized the WU Code, and the form-based
approach allowed the applicants to tailor their project to the context of the
neighborhood.
Solorio stated that an element missing from the discussion is the number of
requests that are rejected by staff or the Council Offices before they ever begin
the formal rezoning process or reach the VPC. The expanded WU Code will not
Page 359
open the floodgates to inappropriate requests because staff processes and
public processes will remain unchanged. The WU Code is a good tool to deliver
missing middle housing in a form that is walkable.
McCabe stated that the WU Code is an effective tool and that he sees many
areas where it could be effectively. He explained that he is generally supportive
but that he will be keeping an open mind during public comment and discussion.
Harris stated that this isn’t a free pass to developers because it does not change
existing city processes. She asked if this could be amended in the future. Klimek
confirmed that the code can be changed through a TA process identical to this
one.
Adams stated that this will open the floodgates to inappropriate requests and
that stringent processes and evaluations will eventually erode.
Jones stated that there is no reason to support this request and that other zoning
districts could be amended to reflect priorities such as shade.
Keyser stated that projects succeed or fail on their own merits and that this TA
only allows a new tool that could be considered in other parts of the city. If
expanded, projects requesting WU Code would still succeed or fail on their own
merits due to staff processes and the public processes.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ryan Boyd (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as being with
the Urban Phoenix Project and thanked the members for their great discussion.
He expressed that this TA is about options and that the Village, Planning
Commission, and City Council can recommend approving or deny any request
that comes before them based on appropriateness. He added that one of the
reasons he supports to TA is because of the Housing Phoenix Plan and its dire
need for additional housing, especially in small forms such as duplexes and
multifamily which is best handled through a form-based code. He added that the
lowest intensity transects permit a suburban form of development and even for
low density redevelopment, an applicant would still need to navigate the 6-month
rezoning process.
Bramley Paulin (registered in neutrality to this item) stated that the WU Code
was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards
encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of
parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it
was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on
established single-family residential neighborhoods and that this is part of the
city’s effort to add 50,000 dwelling units throughout the city, including in
established neighborhoods. He concluded by sharing that 8 VPCs have
recommended denial.
Page 360
Neal Haddad (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as being from
the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix. The WU Code only makes sense
when transit is present and, in Phoenix that area is limited so, he asked why it
makes sense to expand a transit-oriented code to govern land that is not
walkable and served by transit. He added that the Congress for New Urbanism
has stated that a form-based code should be accompanied by a transect map
that has been developed with public input to guide density to where it belongs. At
this stage, there are no standards or vision for how the code will be applied.
Opal Wagner (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself and stated
that, like Member Jones, she has not heard a compelling reason for the TA. She
stated that she supports the light rail and supports the WU Code but that it was
written and adopted specifically to govern development along the light rail and
the TA too broadly redefines the purpose of the Code. She expressed concern
that this may promote auto-dependance by supporting density in areas without
transit. She added that the WU Code includes parking reductions which only
makes sense with high-capacity transit.
Anne Ender (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself as representing
the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association and stated that the board
unanimously opposes this text amendment. There are not sufficient protections
to neighborhoods and there are not enough details on how and where the WU
Code will be implemented. She stated the light rail has blighted many of the
neighborhoods with drugs and crime and that it is only though cooperation with
law enforcement that neighborhoods have been able to protect themselves.
Nicole Rodriguez (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself as a
member of the Encanto Village Planning Committee and echoed the concerns
voiced by Member Bryck. She added that there is a way for the Village Planning
Committees to invoke a text amendment and that these committees do not need
to rely on the City Council or Planning Commission to make the first move. She
stated that she supports WU Code in all light rail corridors but that this is not the
right process to accomplish that outcome.
Andi Abkarian (registered in opposition to item) introduced herself and thanked
the committee for their discussion and deliberation. She was involved in the
development of the city’s downtown code which is also form-based. She stated
that she is concerned with the vague definitions contained in the TA, its process
which lacked public engagement. The process to establish the WU Code and the
DTC was extensive and accompanied by area plans but this expansion does not
provide sufficient guidance to the community, to staff, and to recommending
bodies on how this will be used or why and where it could be appropriate.
STAFF RESPONSE
Page 361
Klimek thanked the committee for their questions and comments and thanked
the attending public for the same. The TA does not dilute the incentives
contained in the ReinventPHX Plans because those plans contain recommended
transects which provide guidance to potential applicants on what district will be
supported by staff. The TA will not provide parking reductions in areas without
light rail because WU Code parking reductions are only permitted within walking
distance of light rail. The TA will not modify any process, direct applicants to the
WU Code, or incentivize its use. The TA will only provide another tool for
applicants, staff, the public, and the recommending bodies to consider. He
concluded by sharing a map of the various regulatory plans, overlays, and policy
areas within the Alhambra Village and indicated that several of the other VPCs
have voted to place geographic restrictions into their recommendations.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION: Jones made a motion to deny the request. Second by LeBlanc.
DISCUSSION:
Jones explained that there has been no public process and that it’s bad that staff
is advocating so hard and even suggesting that it may be appropriate to place
arbitrary geographic restrictions. He said that he would be supportive of WU
Code in light rail corridors, but this isn’t the right process for it and that
geographic restrictions would be arbitrary and inappropriate through this process.
Ender stated that crime needs to be addressed first.
Harris stated that the committee should be allowed time to consider potential
geographic restrictions. She stated that she will voting to deny because she feels
obligated to the public.
Keyser stated that the critique of there being no public input is hyperbole. This is
the public process, and the code is not being imposed on anyone and it will only
be put in place if requested by an applicant and if supported by staff, the
neighborhood, and the recommending bodies. He reiterated an earlier comment
that requests will continue to success or fail on their own merits and that this
doesn’t change any processes or create policy to support density where it
doesn’t belong.
Solorio stated that this came from the Housing Phoenix Plan and that he is
disappointed the Housing Department was not present to share their perspective
on how this will help create much needed housing.
Jones agreed that the Housing Department should have been in attendance to
share their idea. The 150 VPC members citywide cannot possibly represent the
millions of residents in the city and that’s why an additional process is needed.
The responsibility of this VPC is to ensure the proposals have enough detail to
Page 362
be in the best interest of the community and that the public has been informed,
and this proposal does neither.
VOTE: 13-3-0, motion passes with: Adams, Ammon, Bryck, DeGraffenreid,
Ender, Fitzgerald, Harris, Jones, Krietor, LeBlanc, Malkoon, McCabe, and Smith
in support; Keyser, Solorio, and Chair Shore in dissent; and none in abstention.
Page 363
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 10-2
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, explained that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
rezone to WU Code. She explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and
update standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process. She then discussed the revisions in Addendum
A, which include the applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and
Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. She also clarified that WU Code would not
eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans. She reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Larry Whitesell expressed his opposition to the request, stating that it is a one-size-fits-
all approach, and that it will be abused by developers much like the PUD mechanism.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 364
He stated that he I only supportive of WU Code being expanded along light rail lines as
they get built out.
Neal Haddad stated that this is an aspirational issue based on certain Councilmembers’
wishes and that WU Code does not create walkable communities.
Bradley Paulin stated that the WU Code was specifically designed for properties along
the light rail and its standards encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units,
and reduction of parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city
and that it was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack
on established single-family residential neighborhoods.
Mastikhina thanked the community members for their participation and comments. She
explained that the WU Code has several different transect districts that address different
levels of urban intensity, from a suburban-level development to a business core high-
rise type of development. As such, the WU Code is designed to accommodate all types
of urban environments, not just high intensity ones, and can also be successfully
implemented near single-family neighborhoods with minimal impact. She further
explained that any request to rezone to WU Code would still have to go through the
rezoning staff review and public hearing process, where the appropriateness of each
request would be thoroughly evaluated. This request would not automatically rezone
any properties to WU Code. She also explained that there are several properties, even
in low-density parts of the city such as Laveen, that are already utilizing tools such as
Height and Density Waivers to achieve the same intensity of certain WU Code transects
but are not held to the same enhanced site and architectural design standards as
properties zoned WU Code.
MOTION
Craig Tribken made a motion to approve the request per the staff recommendation.
The motion failed to receive a second.
Linda Bair made a motion to deny the request as filed. Vice Chair William Fischbach
seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION
Barry Paceley stated that he wishes they had received more information on this
request.
Chair Jay Swart commended the community members that spoke on this item for their
thoroughness, and stated that although staff gave a great presentation, the request is
simply too vague and ambiguous. He stated that this makes it difficult to support it.
VOTE
10-2: Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Bair, Bayless,
Thraen, Garcia, Miller, Paceley, and Sharaby in favor, and committee members
Eichelkraut and Tribken dissenting.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 365
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 11, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request From boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts and administrative temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Approval per Addendum A
VPC Vote 10-3
VPC DISCUSSION:
One request to speak in opposition was made for this request.
Sarah Stockham, staff, provided a summary of the request involving the expansion of
the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting the existing boundaries where
WU code is available today, and the need for this text amendment given the expansion
of mass-transit to other parts of the city. Ms. Stockham added that this proposal would
allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding
single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas, this proposal does not rezone
any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the
applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Ms.
Stockham explained that Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of
regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit
fees. An overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts
was provided, and staff concluded with their recommendation of approval per
Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the hearing schedule for this case.
Questions from the Committee:
Eva Olivas asked how outreach was performed for this request. Ms. Stockham replied
that the request was heard at each Village Planning Committee for information only,
and there could have been discussions with management with individuals, but she
does not have the exact day and time of those meetings as she is not the staff who is
processing this request.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 366
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 2
Ryan Boyd commented that this request was also a part of the Housing Phoenix Plan
and outreach could have been conducted during those meetings as well. Ms.
Stockham confirmed that expanding the Walkable Urban Code was one of the land
use strategies of the Housing Phoenix Plan and that
Public Comment:
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that the WU
Code was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards
encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He
stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever
created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-
family residential neighborhoods and encouraged the committee to deny this request.
Darlene Martinez asked if anyone else has made the same comment on this request.
Ms. Stockham replied that Mr. Paulin has made the same comment at other Village
Planning Committee meetings.
Staff Response:
Ms. Stockham reiterated staff’s recommendation, that this request is to expand the
option to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, it does not rezone properties
outright and that the process for evaluating and analyzing the appropriateness of
rezoning requests is comprehensive.
Motion:
Chris Colyer motion to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A. Ryan
Boyd seconded the motion.
Discussion:
Ryan Boyd explained that he understands why other Villages might have concerns but
this request makes the WU Code an option and not everything in the WU Code is a
skyscraper. Mr. Boyd added that the sites have been using the WU Code standards in
PUDs, and if a WU Code request is inappropriate the Village Planning Committee can
reject it and has control over where it is implemented. Mr. Boyd concluded that in
terms of public outreach, this has case has already gone to the other villages for input,
has taken too long to go for recommendation and reiterated that request just makes the
WU Code an option.
Darlene Martinez echoed Mr. Boyd’s comments.
Eva Olivas agreed with Mr. Boyd’s comments that swayed her to support the request
and shared that this is part of the Housing Phoenix Plan and will create the opportunity
to increase housing density in areas that are not TOD areas.
Chair Rachel Frazier Johnson shared concern with this request and the lack of
information on public outreach.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 367
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Page 3
Vote:
10-3, motion to approve Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A passes with Committee Members
Boyd, Burns, Colyer, Gaona, Gonzalez, Martinez, Olivas, Panetta, Starks, and
Sonoskey in favor with Committee Members Dubasik, Lockhart and R. Johnson
opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 368
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 14, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-3-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
2 people registered to in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. David Simmons, staff, introduced himself and gave an overview of the
request to include the objective of expanding the WU Code citywide, covered the
updated references to relevant policy plans that WU Code is intended to
implement, the modification of lot standards to address development proposals in
non-TOD districts, explained minor clarifications regarding existing terminology
relevant to the expansion and went over the need to adopt related WU Code and
ATUP fees as a result of this update. Mr. Simmons also showed several
examples of the various transect districts outlined in the request and how staff
would analyze requests as they are submitted, similar to any other rezoning
request.
VPC Discussion:
None
Public Comment:
Mr. Bramley Paulin stated that Mr. Simmons did an impeccable job presenting
the request. He shared that he has concerns with the lack of public input on the
request to date. He shared concerns with density allowances as well as
reductions in required parking outlined in the various transect districts. He stated
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 369
that there are too many unknown details in the request. He does not support a
recommendation for approval.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked Mr. Paulin if this request was initiated by staff or private.
Mr. Bramley shared that this request is applicant driven.
Mr. Larry Whitesell, Vice Chair of the Peak Neighborhood Association, shared
that he has one major concern. This request puts the cart before the horse. He
suggested that this request needs more citizen driven working groups on this
request to include transect maps. He shared that he believes this request should
not be city wide and should be phased in in TOPS districts as light rail is
expanded.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil shared that he also sits on the Rio Vista Village Planning
Committee and this item was voted down by that Village. He stated that the
request should be voted down by the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
too. He does not believe the request should expand the WU Code city wide.
Chairman Joseph Grossman stated that he does not know enough about the
request to make an informed decision at this point in time.
MOTION:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil made a motion to recommend denial of Text Amendment Case
No. Z-TA-3-19.
Mr. Keith Greenberg seconded the motion.
MOTION:
Mr. Mark Davenport made a motion to recommend approval of Text
Amendment Case No. Z-TA-3-19, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Matthew Kenney seconded the motion.
Mr. Virgil’s motion was on the floor first. Chairman Grossman called for a vote
for the first motion, to recommend denial of the request.
VOTE:
4-3-1 with committee members Greenberg, Levy, Romero and Virgil in favor.
Committee members Davenport, Kenney and Shipman not in favor. Chairman
Grossman abstained.
Mr. Davenport removed his motion to recommend approval from consideration.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 370
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 6-1
VPC DISCUSSION:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will
allow property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to
request rezoning to rezone to WU Code.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code,
and update standards regarding single family attached residential development
outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not
automatically rezone any property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the
applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative
Temporary Use Permit fees. She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate
Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise
District, and Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were
approved, applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through
the standard rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included
the pre-application meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 371
added that the public hearings would allow for public input. She also provided
examples of low-density products that were developed under WU Code zoning
Committee member Rick Nowell asked if WU Code would make it easier to
rezone a specific site. Julianna Pierre stated that if an applicant was rezoning
to WU Code, they would still have to go through the standard rezoning process.
She stated that it may be easier for certain products to be built using WU Code
because the applicant may not have to, in some cases, go through the longer
Planned Unit Development (PUD) process for the same results.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he was concerned with the
idea of allowing WU Code City wide. He added that this is an opportunity for the
City to bring in density which will result in additional traffic, congestion, and
people.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that he was supportive of WU Code near
transit oriented development, but felt that it was not applicable citywide.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked if rezoning to WU Code could
replace the PUD process. Julianna Pierre explained that as of right now, there
are some applicants that use the PUD process to generate the same results as
WU Code because WU Code is not available citywide. She stated that if the text
amendment is approved, applicants could, in some cases, rezone to WU Code
instead of going through the longer PUD process. Committee member
Michelle Santoro stated that she understood the intent of the text amendment,
but felt that WU Code may not be needed in the Desert View Village.
Committee member Michelle Santoro asked if the text amendment had been
presented to other Village Planning Committees (VPC). Julianna Pierre stated
that the text amendment had been presented to the Encanto and Paradise Valley
VPCs.
Committee member Rick Nowell stated that he had concerns about increased
density as a result of WU Code being permitted citywide.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19. The
motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Nowell.
VOTE: 6-1 with Committee Members Lagrave, Kollar, Nowell, Santoro, and
Younger in favor and Chair Bowser in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 372
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 4, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-0-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Three speaker cards were received with all three in opposition and wishing to speak.
At this time, Benjamin, Cothron, and Searles departed the meeting reducing the quorum
to eight members (eight being required for a quorum).
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July and to the Encanto VPC at the July
12th meeting. The input received from the informational sessions was studied and the
staff recommendation was revised in Addendum A which is now before the committee
for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half mile
from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s form-based
approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors, such as village cores
and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes geographic constraints and
would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU Code city-wide. The request does
not rezone any property, modify any process, or modify any existing policy plan or
standard. The language proposed in Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to
clarify how the WU Code will interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in different
contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on trees, shade, and
human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU Code expansion would
proliferate high-density development throughout the city but explained that this is a
misconception because there are existing zoning tools that allow high density
Page 373
development in areas where the WU Code is not currently an option, including Planned
Unit Developments. While certain WU Code Transects allow for high density, these
transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented requirements that are not required in alternative
high-density options. The rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two
meetings with staff, one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused
on determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by stating
that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear before the
Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Benjamin asked if the text amendment addresses charter schools. Klimek responded
that when the text amendment was initiated, it was intended to cover more topics but
has been pulled back to focus on the WU Code.
Wagner stated that 1301.B in the text amendment removes “Central Valley East Valley
Light Rail Corridor” from the purpose and intent statement and substitutes “Transit
Corridors”, but that language is not defined. Klimek responded that the proposed
language is intended to be more broadly to recognize that the code may be appropriate
outside of light rail corridors. Wagner stated that she would be more comfortable if
transit corridor were defined because without parameters this language could be used
to justify increased intensity virtually anywhere. The WU Code was specifically written to
decrease dependency on automobiles and by putting density in far flung parts of the city
without transit will increase automobile use. The WU Code has not reached its potential
in the light rail corridors where vacant lots continue to exist, and it would be a disservice
to siphon off new development in those corridors before the massive investment in light
rail has fully come to fruition. The WU Code was written with input from the residents of
Phoenix and this process has not adequately engaged the community. Klimek added
that the totality of language in 1303.B emphasizes the use of the WU Code to advance
development in “Transit Corridors” and other contexts such as policy plans.
Vice Chair Bryck stated that he has gone back and forth on the topic including to allow
more tools to support housing development but continued returning to the extensive
public engagement efforts behind the ReinventPHX Plans to map specific
recommended transects parcel by parcel. He expressed concern that there is no policy
guidance for what level of intensity is appropriate outside of the light rail corridors and,
outside of those corridors, it will be up to staff to decide and that’s too much
responsibility. He added that the WU Code was intended to be a carrot to fill in these
vacant lots and that the cases heard tonight have been great examples of what WU
Code was intended to do; he asked, would these projects have happened if WU Code
was allowed everywhere. He added that Phoenix has a habit of moving on to focus on
different areas before they are finished with the last, for example, from downtown to
midtown to 24th Street and Camelback. He stated that there are too many unknowns
and asked what are the transects going to be in Ahwatukee or Rio Vista.
Page 374
Rodriguez echoed the concerns of Vice Chair Bryck and Member Wagner and stated
that she wishes it had come out a month earlier. She expressed concerns regarding
car-centric development. She asked if there is the potential for the process to end up in
a Zoning Hearing Officer’s hands or if there are loopholes to circumvent the VPC.
Klimek responded that all rezoning requests need to be presented to the VPC,
Planning Commission, and City Council. He added that some properties with existing
zoning entitlements, such as WU Code, may seek relief through a Variance, Use
Permit, or the Design Review Committee (DRC) but that these cannot be used to
circumvent the zoning process. Rodriguez asked who is on the design review
committee. Klimek responded that the DRC is comprised of land use processionals,
has a staff liaison from the Planning and Development Department, and they are a
public board. Rodriguez asked how this text amendment will modify the approach to
single-family attached and detached dwellings. Klimek responded that the text
amendment cleans-up the single-family attached section of the code by more neatly
sorting out what regulations from three different sections of the ordinance apply when.
Rodriguez asked why it is appropriate to expand the WU Code rather than
incorporating minimum standards such as 75% shade or other aspects off the WU Code
in other zoning districts. Klimek responded that, unlike other existing districts, the WU
Code is mostly self-contained and already includes an effective form-based approach
that the 30+ other zoning districts would struggle to emulate even with substantial
amendments. He added that
Mahrle echoed Vice Chair Bryck’s concerns that there are too many unknowns. He
illustrated this point with the example of a hypothetical development at 44th Street and
Camelback. Why would an owner want to consider the WU Code? How would the City
benefit from the WU Code at that location, is it something the City would impose on a
developer, and what transect would be appropriate and who decides. He concluded by
stating that the city needs to consider potential unintended consequences. He asked
Vice Chair Bryck if he’s encapsulated his concerns. Vice Chair Bryck confirmed that
unintended consequences sum it up and added that the unknowns put a responsibility
on both the developer and on staff to negotiate a transect. Mahrle added that it is
important to look at it from the developer’s perspective and why they would even want
to use the WU Code. He concluded by stating there are too many unknowns for him to
comfortably support it. Klimek thanked both for their comments that that some
scenarios would be helpful to show how some real-world scenarios would play out but
that selecting representative examples is difficult in a city as large as Phoenix.
Vice Chair Bryck stated that the Planned Unit Development (PUD) is an established
process to allow developers an alternative to traditional zoning. He asked why the
expansion of the WU Code is a better alternative to PUDs. Klimek responded that the
expanded WU Code would put all projects on even footing because they would be
required to comply to the same basic standards which is both easier to administer and
more transparent for residents. In a PUD, a developer can start from scratch and to
cherry pick their development standards which then need to be thoroughly evaluated by
staff for, not only content but also comparability to the base zoning district.
Page 375
Vice Chair Bryck noted that the expansion of the WU Code is identified in the Housing
Phoenix Plan but that he didn’t know if the plan or that recommendation it was built from
public input. He asked when other recommendations from that plan such as ADUs and
revisions to the infill policies will begin to happen. Klimek responded that he believes
the department is working on ADUs but stated that he doesn’t know when that language
would be ready for the VPCs.
George shared that the origin of the WU Code was to promote walkability by doing
away with setbacks and parking, thus allowing more height and intensity in the central
city. All, as a bonus to property owners close to transit including those with vacant land.
It was intended to create a walkable urban environment where transit is available, and it
is all tied to transit which is not existent in parts of our sprawling city. If the WU Code is
applied citywide, the incentive in the central city is removed to build these developments
where they belong, near light rail or BRT. The WU Code was never meant to be
exported to Laveen where residents value their semi-rural lifestyle without any
identifiable transit. They cannot replicate the central city in areas where it was never
meant to be. She concluded by stating that she will be voting no.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Andi Abkarian introduced herself as a downtown resident and a vice chair of
Downtown Voices Coalition (DVC). DVC was developed in response to a need for more
neighborhood focused planning. DVC does support increased density and is looking
forward to the stakeholder input process prior to the Planning Commission Meeting.
One critical element is the local context and the language, as written, relies heavily on
policy interpretation. A benefit of the neighborhood specific TOD Plans such as East
Lake Garfield is that they were generated in conjunction with the WU Code standards
for those areas and the two infill projects presented tonight show the importance of
neighborhood focused planning and development. She stated that this text amendment
appears to be ahead of itself in terms of local planning and policy for development in
those areas. From a personal perspective, she expressed her agreement with Wagner
and Bryck in that villages in the central city need to support the policies and programs
that incentivize density in that core and along light rail. Citing that the Rosewood Homes
applicant indicated they were the first project to do single-family detached under the WU
Code, she indicated that this code should be given room to breathe and evolve before it
is ready to be tested citywide. She concluded by thanking the VPC for their service and
to planning in Phoenix.
Robert Warnicke introduced himself and expressed his opposition to the text
amendment. He read the purpose and intent of Section 13 for the committee which
emphasized the central role of light rail of the WU Code. The WU Code is about
intensity, density, and height in proximity to light rail and offers these bonuses to
support the city’s investment in light rail and the light rail isn’t citywide so the WU Code
shouldn’t be. He added that it is easy to plan WU Code where light rail is going because
it doesn’t happen overnight. He concluded that the expansion is contrary to the original
Page 376
purpose of the WU Code and that it will spread density and more intensity with less
open space and fewer setbacks.
Donna Reiner expressed her agreement with Wagner and Bryck. From the pedestrian’s
perspective, the WU Code has failed miserably because it hasn’t produced the shade
promised and hasn’t made the streets for people on foot. She asked the committee to
vote against the text amendment until the misconception of how to use the WU Code
and its other failings are resolved. She asked why it makes sense to give a bad code to
the rest of the city. Development should not be for the sole benefit of the developer who
will build it and then leave, development should also benefit the entire populace.
STAFF RESPONSE
Klimek responded that the intent of the WU Code was clearly to implement TOD along
the light rail corridor but that, since that time, it has become clear that other areas exist
where it would also be the best tool for the job. The Secondary Core in the North
Mountain Village is Sunnyslope, and this area would have benefitted greatly from the
WU Code. The WU Code would have provided flexibility in exchange for an assurance
of a pedestrian oriented environment with shade and eyes-on-the-street. Unlike other
areas of the city, this district includes many small property owners united under a vision
for walkable urban development but there is no zoning tool better suited for their vision
than the WU Code, but it is unavailable. There are doubtless more places in the city that
would benefit from the expanded eligibility of the WU Code. The text amendment does
not rezone any property, does not gift density to any landowner, and is a prerequisite
step to developing a holistic policy on how the WU Code may be appropriate in different
contexts.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE.
MOTION
Wagner motioned to deny the request. George seconded.
DISCUSSION
Rodriguez stated that she appreciates the public comments who offered their insight on
the matter and that she supports the TOD Districts as they stand. She then thanked
staff for his work.
Vice Chair Bryck thanked staff for the presentation and the candor and that is a tough
job to have to sell something that wasn’t fully baked. He indicated that he would be
open to hearing another proposal if staff works to answer some of the open questions
and concerns and to better flush out the idea.
Chair Kleinman thanked members of the committee for their input and for hanging on for
the entire meeting. He added that of the 15 Villages, Encanto is likely most familiar and
most dedicated to seeing it used in its best interest. He then thanked staff for explaining
the proposed change and for answering difficult questions.
Page 377
VOTE
8-0-0; motion passed with George, Mahrle, Matthews, Procaccini, Rodriguez, Wagner,
Vice Chair Bryck, and Chair Kleinman in support; none in dissent; and none in
abstention.
Page 378
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 19, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Denial
Vote 7-0 Motion passes; with members Barquin, Cartwright,
Danzeisen, Perez, Rush and Sanou and Cardenas in
favor; None in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDATION:
Three members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) Code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU Code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the city.
He discussed elements of the WU Code which prioritize the pedestrian environment
and explained the transect district acronym plus unique development standards.
Examples of what each transect district could look like were provided. This proposal
would allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards
regarding single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal
does not rezone any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does
not modify the applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD
District plans. Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of regulatory
overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An
overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was
provided. Staff recommends approval per Addendum A of the staff report and
discussed the schedule for this case.
Committee member Ademolu left the meeting at 7:15pm, bringing the quorum to 7
members.
Chairman Cardenas asked for committee member questions. He then asked for public
comments on this case.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 379
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, stated that this text amendment is better suited
for TOD areas. He discussed shading elements and parking reductions that would be
applicably citywide if this case is approved. Other Village Planning Committees have
heard this case and denied the request. Homeowners are left wondering where
development will happen and will have to battle each project with an applicant’s
attorney regarding the density. No opportunities for citizen input were available and
there is a lack of public participation. He asked the committee to deny the request.
Ryan Boyd, member of the public, supports this text amendment which will allow WU
Code as an option citywide. Public input will be provided throughout the process and
the VPC’s will have the ability to hear each WU Code case within their villages. This
allows for a wide range of housing options and a mix of uses throughout the city.
Neal Haddad, member of the public, stated that this text amendment case is putting
the cart before the horse, as the concept does not work without having a transect map.
A vision document that incorporates citizen input is needed for this vision. This case
has a generational impact, and VPC members should not be forced into deciding.
Other VPC’s have denied this request and requests that this committee also vote to
deny this case.
Mr. Bojórquez summarized the text amendment request. He added that staff would
recommend approval per Addendum A of the staff report, but if the committee has
concerns with allowing WU Code citywide, the committee could consider limiting the
boundaries to Village Cores and along mass-transit corridors. He showed a map of
TOD communities in Phoenix and Village Cores citywide.
Lisa Perez appreciates the information, but other alternatives for this text amendment
need to be provided ahead of the meeting for further analysis.
Dan Rush added that he would be open to reconsidering the request if new
information is provided all VPC’s ahead of the meeting.
MOTION:
Ms. Perez motioned to deny case Z-TA-3-19. Mr. Rush seconded the motion to deny.
VOTE:
7-0, motion passed; Members Barquin, Cartwright, Danzeisen, Perez, Rush, Sanou
and Cardenas in favor; None in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 380
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 11, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule
to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Approval with a modification to only allow expansion to
high-capacity transit corridors and Village Cores.
Vote 8-0
VPC DISCUSSION:
Sofia Mastikhina, staff, explained that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow
property owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development
(TOD) policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to
rezone to WU Code. She explained that the text amendment will remove geographic
restrictions on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and
update standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process. She then discussed the revisions in Addendum
A, which include the applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans and
Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. She also clarified that WU Code would not
eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts, Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or
Specific Plans. She reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and
scale, such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
Francisco Barraza asked if this proposal will change how developments are
constructed along transit and light rail lines. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code is
already applicable along the existing light rail corridors where Transit Oriented
Development (TOD) Policy Plans exist. Properties in these areas are already eligible to
request to be rezoned to WU Code.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 381
Stephanie Hurd expressed concern with the application of the WU Code outside of
transit areas and asked if the committee would still have the same opportunity to
request specific improvements via stipulations as with any other rezoning case.
Mastikhina explained that any request for WU Code zoning will require a full rezoning
process, including all associated public hearings where committee members can
request to add stipulations to the entitlement case.
Chair Tonya Glass asked if the WU Code acts as a density bonus. Mastikhina
explained that the WU Code does not have density caps and is focused more on how
sites and buildings are designed and how they interact the pedestrian environment,
rather than the uses inside the buildings. She noted that development standards such
as lot coverage, setbacks and height maximums automatically limit how many dwelling
units can fit in a development. Chair Glass expressed concern with essentially giving
developers a density bonus, with the enforceability of WU Code, and how WU Code
would impact Laveen, which is very far away from the light rail. She also stated that WU
Code may have come too late for Laveen, since there are already so many properties
zoned for multifamily residential and there aren’t many opportunities left to implement
this code. She further expressed concern with the lack of vetting of this proposal and
how it will impact communities such as Laveen and Anthem, which do not have major
transit corridors like more central parts of the city.
Hurd pondered if this is something that can be applied to certain areas of Laveen, and if
it would bring any benefits. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code contains several
transect districts with a range of urban intensities, and that most are of a mixed-use
nature. She pointed out that the committee has raised concerns over the past few
months with other cases at the lack of mixed-use developments that bring economic
prosperity and retail options to Laveen. The WU Code is mixed-use by nature, and
many of the transect district allow for a wide range of land uses, meaning that properties
zoned WU Code would have the flexibility to expand uses as the market allows, which
could be beneficial to the community.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Bramley Paulin stated that the WU Code was specifically designed for properties along
the light rail and its standards encourage reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units,
and reduction of parking. He stated that this is not appropriate for all areas of the city
and that it was not ever created for this purpose. He stated that this request is an attack
on established single-family residential neighborhoods.
Dan Penton asked if the village can stipulate on WU Code cases, if the WU Code
allows for smaller lot sizes in single-family subdivisions, how it specifically promotes
walkability, and how it could help Laveen preserve its rural character and sense of
place. Mastikhina explained that the WU Code does not set forth minimum lot widths,
but that the committee could stipulate to a minimum width much like any other single-
family rezoning case. She also stated that the WU Code addresses walkability by
setting forth required standards for things like enhanced shading for pedestrian
pathways and public open spaces, building frontages that activate the pedestrian realm
such as patios, stoops, and storefronts, wider sidewalks that are detached from
vehicular drives, and a mix of uses on every site. Penton asked how this can be
implemented in Laveen to create enhanced built environments such as the Kierland
Commons in northeast Phoenix. Mastikhina replied that the Kierland Commons was
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 382
achieved via a PUD that mostly followed WU Code standards, and that the entire
purpose of the WU Code is to achieve pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use developments.
Penton asked if a development in a Village Core that is zoned WU Code can limit the
number of vehicles and parking on the site to help create a more pedestrian-friendly
environment. Mastikhina replied that parking reductions are possible in the WU Code,
and that the extent to which they are granted depend on proximity to light rail stations.
She explained that each request for rezoning and parking reductions would be
evaluated on a case-by-case basis, stating that a development located in the outer
reaches of the city limits where transit options don’t exist would not be a good candidate
for parking reductions. Properties in urban cores and centers, however, can receive
parking reductions of almost 100 percent, depending on how many transit options are
available in close proximity.
Chair Glass stated that she understands the benefits of this code, but that most of the
areas that would benefit most from it are already eligible, as they are along the light rail.
Hurd agreed that Laveen can benefit from the walkability and shading and stated that
the committee can stipulate to ensure developments are still compatible with the area.
However, she wants to hear what other committee members have to say.
Vice Chair Linda Abegg expressed her concern with what the community is giving up
to allow for all the extra density, noting that developers will not subject themselves to all
of these enhanced standards if they’re not getting significant flexibility out of it. She
stated that she prefers the PUD tool to achieve the same standards but still be able to
limit the density of a project.
Carlos Ortega asked for clarification on the applicability of this amendment, and if will
only apply to where transit currently exists or will exist in the future. Vice Chair Abegg
explained that the text amendment would allow the WU Code to be applied anywhere in
the city, not just along transit lines.
MOTION
Chair Glass made a motion to approve the text amendment with a modification to only
allow it along high-capacity transit corridors. Vice Chair Abegg asked to amend the
motion to also include Village Cores. Chair Glass accepted the amendment. Barraza
seconded the motion.
VOTE
8-0: Motion passes with committee members Glass, Abegg, Barraza, Buggs, Hurd,
Knight, Ortega, and Rouse in favor.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 383
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 13, 2021
Request Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts and administrative temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Approval per Addendum A
VPC Vote 6-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
One request to speak in opposition was made for this request. Committee members
Demarest and Hernandez left during this item, bringing quorum to 8.
Sarah Stockham, staff, provided a summary of the request involving the expansion of
the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting the existing boundaries where
WU code is available today, and the need for this text amendment given the expansion
of mass-transit to other parts of the city. Ms. Stockham added that this proposal would
allow property owners to rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding
single-family attached standards outside of TOD areas, this proposal does not rezone
any property, does not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the
applicability or standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Ms.
Stockham explained that Addendum A of the staff report revises applicability of
regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit
fees. An overview of existing zoning tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts
was provided, and staff concluded with their recommendation of approval per
Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the hearing schedule for this case.
Questions from the Committee:
Saundra Cole asked for a brief overview of the WU Code and if it would allow
commercial uses. Ms. Stockham briefly explained that the Walkable Urban Code is a
formed based code within the Zoning Ordinance, and that zoning districts are named
transects which relates to the amount of uses and intensity they allow, and that there
are more design requirements and more requirements for shade, sidewalks, and bicycle
parking than what is found in conventional zoning districts. Ms. Stockham confirmed
that most transects allow both commercial and residential uses.
Sandra Oviedo asked what benefits this brings to Maryvale. Ms. Stockham highlighted
the increased shade, bicycle parking and pedestrian amenities that are required with
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 384
WU Code projects, adding that it is a form-based code so there are frontage and glazing
requirements to activate the street frontage, and added that Maryvale is going to receive
significant transit infrastructure investment with the light rail extension and the bus rapid
transit line, and that the Maryvale Village Core Plan is a transit-oriented development
policy plan that recommends many of the requirements in the WU Code.
Chair Gene Derie asked for clarification on the current geographic restrictions of the
WU Code. Ms. Stockham replied that applicants can choose to rezone to the WU Code
if they are within the five TOD policy plan areas along the existing light rail line but
applicants along planned light rail lines, like the 10West extension in Maryvale, do not
have that option.
Public Comment:
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that the WU Code
was specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards encourage
reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He stated that
this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever created for this
purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-family residential
neighborhoods and encouraged the committee to deny this request.
Staff Response:
Ms. Stockham reiterated staff’s recommendation, that this request is to expand the
option to rezone to the Walkable Urban Code citywide, it does not rezone properties
outright and that the process for evaluating and analyzing the appropriateness of
rezoning requests is comprehensive.
Motion:
Ken DuBose motioned to recommend approval of Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A. Mike
Weber seconded the motion.
Vote:
6-2, motion to approve Z-TA-3-19 per Addendum A passes with Committee Members
Battle, Cole, DuBose, Oviedo, Valenzuela and Weber in favor and committee members
Garcia and Derie opposed.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 385
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 14, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code. She stated that removing geographic restrictions on WU Code will
support the City’s growing number of TOD areas.
Julianna Pierre explained how transect districts function in WU Code and how each
transect has unique standards for building height, frontage, setbacks, lot coverage, and
land uses. She also provided examples of product types built within each transect.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will allow property owners to apply
to rezoned to WU Code and update standards regarding single family attached
residential development outside TOD districts. She clarified that the text amendment
will not automatically rezone any property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the applicability
of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees.
She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts,
Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and scale,
such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 386
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input.
Neal Haddad, a member off the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix, stated that
the text amendment needs precise documentation for each village along with transect
maps. He stated that transect maps would clarify which transects are appropriate in
specific locations. He added that the current text amendment process lacked public
input.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that WU Code was not intended to be
implemented citywide. He stated that the text amendment does not prohibit developers
from requesting high density or increased height. He stated that the increased density
will cause additional traffic and eliminate established single-family neighborhoods.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon asked why the boundaries of the WU code were being
pushed citywide rather than remaining close to transit. Julianna Pierre explained that
WU Code allows for product types that prioritize the pedestrian environment and create
walkable spaces. Vice Chair Shannon Simon stated that she could imagine WU Code
in Village cores, but noted concern with it being permitted citywide. Julianna Pierre
stated that there is an option to approve the text amendment with modifications to
restrict the applicability to Village Cores or along transit lines.
Committee member Julie Read stated that the text amendment did not seem
applicable to the North Gateway Village. She added that she was hesitant to approve a
text amendment that would make changes for the entire City when a majority of other
Village Planning Committees (VPC) voted for denial.
Joshua Bednarek, Deputy Director in the Planning and Development Department,
reiterated that the WU Code text amendment will not rezone any properties. He added
that are already high density options available in the zoning ordinance, but WU Code
will allow for the opportunity to maximize current and future transit investments.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon stated that she’s supportive of limiting WU Code to
specific areas, but there would need to be clear parameters. She stated that it could be
detrimental to open the door to having high density in residential areas.
Bramley Paulin stated that the main issue with the text amendment is that it lacks
specificity. He added that the City should have gone out to the public for not only input,
but also to educate them about the specifics of WU Code. He reiterated that he is
concerned about the impact that the text amendment will have on existing
neighborhoods.
Larry Whitesell, a member of the public, stated that WU Code was originally intended
for mass transit corridors, Village cores, and emerging centers. He added that WU
Code is not appropriate throughout the entirety of the City. He stated that a transect
map could help to establish guidelines for where density would be located.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 387
Committee member Steve Tucker asked what issues could expanding the WU Code
boundaries resolve. Joshua Bednarek stated that WU Code would make development
more walkable in appropriate areas and combat challenges of heat, housing, and traffic.
He added that the test amendment would only allow WU Code to be an available
rezoning option throughout the City.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon asked for clarification regarding the transect maps.
Joshua Bednarek stated the City’s General Plan Land Use Map works as a transect
map and can be looked to for density expectations. He added that any rezoning cases
requesting WU Code would be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Neal Haddad, stated that WU Code could not be applied without specificity and would
not work in a piecemeal fashion. He stated that applicants could utilize the Planned
Unit Development (PUD) option if they wanted to use WU Code standards outside of
the current WU Code boundaries.
Joshua Bednarek stated that the Z-TA-3-19 would also prevent the need for future text
amendment if the City’s transit-oriented areas were expanded.
Committee member Julie Read stated that she appreciated hearing the current
conversation regarding the proposed text amendment, but felt it would be better to
reconsider the item when it had been reworked and addressed community concerns.
MOTION: Committee member Michelle Ricart made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19.
The motion was seconded by Committee member Julie Read.
VOTE: 4-0 with Committee members Simon, Read, Ricart, and Tucker in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 388
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 20, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
on a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban
(WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A -
Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code
Transect Districts.
VPC Recommendation Approve
VPC Vote 11-2-2
VPC DISCUSSION:
Six speaker cards were received on this item with all wishing to speak including three in
support, one in neutrality, and two in opposition.
STAFF PRESENTATION
Klimek, staff, provided an overview of the proposed text amendment which was
presented to all village planning committees in July and to the Encanto VPC at the July
12th meeting. The input received from the informational sessions was studied and the
staff recommendation was revised in Addendum A which is now before the committee
for a possible recommendation.
The WU Code was originally written to apply only within approximately one-half mile
from light rail lines but, since that time it’s became clear that the WU Code’s form-based
approach would be appropriate areas outside of light rail corridors, such as village cores
and other high-capacity transit lines. The request removes geographic constraints and
would allow owners to request rezoning to the WU Code city-wide. The request does
not rezone any property, modify any process, or modify any existing policy plan or
standard. The language proposed in Addendum A cleans up the original proposal to
clarify how the WU Code will interact with other sections of the code.
The WU Code contains a continuum of urban forms intended to be deployed in different
contexts, from suburban to downtown scales, all with an emphasis on trees, shade, and
human scale. Some have expressed the concern that the WU Code expansion would
proliferate high-density development throughout the city but explained that this is a
misconception because there are existing zoning tools that allow high density
development in areas where the WU Code is not currently an option, including Planned
Unit Developments. While certain WU Code Transects allow for high density, these
Page 389
transects prescribe pedestrian-oriented requirements that are not required in alternative
high-density options. The rezoning process includes substantial oversight including two
meetings with staff, one neighborhood meeting, and three public hearings – all focused
on determining the appropriateness of a request.
He then provided an overview of the contents of Addendum A and concluded by stating
that staff is recommending approval with the item scheduled to appear before the
Planning Commission in November.
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE
Veidmark thanked Klimek for sending the presentation in advance of the meeting and
stated that it was very helpful to understand the complex issue.
Argiro agreed with Veidmark and thanked Klimek. He asked Klimek to clarify if the text
amendment would rezone any property. Klimek responded that the text amendment
does not rezone any property.
McBride asked if the intent of this text amendment is to put another zoning option on
the menu, if it changes any processes to make density easier to access, and if
recommendations and decisions would still involve the professional expertise of staff,
neighborhood engagement, and the public hearing bodies. Klimek responded that the
text amendment provides another zoning tool, does not change any process, and run
through the same process as any other zoning case, including public engagement
requirements.
Perez asked how many meetings a developer is required to have with the community
and if there are requirements for bilingual outreach. Klimek responded that all rezoning
cases require the applicant to contact all properties owners within 600’ and all
registered neighborhood groups within 1 mile to inform and to invite them to their
required neighborhood meeting. All applicants must hold one neighborhood meeting
followed by three public hearings. The notifications are required in English only but that
often, depending on the specific context of the area, that staff will recommend bilingual
or enhanced outreach. Perez thanked Klimek and stated that enhanced outreach
requirements should be explored.
Jaramillo asked that, if the text amendment is granted, that there would be nothing to
prevent an applicant from requesting the WU Code for a high-density project in the
middle of a single-family neighborhood. Klimek responded that there is nothing to
prevent an applicant from asking but that won’t be an issue new to the WU Code.
Today, an applicant could request a traditional district for high-density development in
an established neighborhood, but he concluded by explaining that the staff analysis and
the public processes have withstood such requests effectively for many years and these
processes remain unchanged.
Page 390
Sommacampagna asked for the outcomes from the other villages that have heard the
request. Klimek responded that he did not have an exact count but explained that it has
been mixed with each committee applying their unique perspectives to the request.
Some have been supportive because it is another tool to be applied where appropriate.
Some have been conditionally supportive recommending approving subject to
geographic restrictions. Some have been concerned due to uncertainty of how the code
will be rolled out.
Barraza asked if it is possible to stipulate the elements from the WU Code into existing
zones. Klimek responded that in some areas of the city where WU Code isn’t available
such as 19North, that staff has been stipulating elements from the WU Code but that
there are some items that are in conflict. For example, traditional zones require a
minimum building setback to push development away from the public street but the WU
Code requires a minimum build-to line to establish a pedestrian orientation to the public
sidewalk environment. He concluded by sharing that, in such instances, the regulatory
mechanisms of the codes can be in conflict.
McBride asked if the WU Code TA would give any power to a developer requesting to
build something adjacent to a single-family neighborhood. She asked if the request
would still need to go through staff and community input processes to determine
whether the proposal is appropriate to the context of the area. She then asked that, just
because an applicant requests something, it doesn’t necessarily mean it will be granted.
Klimek confirmed that the TA expands the eligibility of the WU Code but doesn’t
change any process. The rezoning process for WU Code or other districts is still going
to be 6 months with staff, the community, and recommending bodies and council.
Argiro asked what protections exist to keep inappropriate development from taking
hold. McBride responded that there is a plan for the city that doesn’t allow a high-rise to
be located next to a cottage and that staff and the establish public processes exists to
further evaluate projects. Argiro asked Klimek if the code contains further detail on
what the different transect are intended to create. Klimek responded that Chapter 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance contains the WU Code and that it depicts a series of
illustrations to depict the different types of “frontage types” required in different transects
such a porches, patios, common entries, and forecourts.
Barraza asked if the WU Code could be used to make a project more compatible with
its surroundings. Klimek responded that a form-based code such as the WU Code is
intended to allow for more design discretion to promote compatibility with its contexts,
compared to traditional zoning districts that prescribe standards more rigidly. He then
raised to examples from the Encanto Village which proposed single-family attached
subdivisions located in established neighborhoods; the WU Code allowed for a
traditional density in a form that made sense in their established neighborhoods while
also allowing for more collaborative conversations with the neighborhood.
Chair Krentz asked if this form-based approach has been used in other cities. Klimek
responded that many communities have adopted a form-based code as an additional
Page 391
option and that others have entirely replaced their traditional code in favor of form-
based regulations. These communities have determined that their traditional codes
have not been producing the broader outcomes they desired, such as walkability and
form-based codes can be more directly aligned with greater outcomes desired. He
concluded by sharing that the TA would add the WU Code as a small part of the menu
of zoning options in Phoenix.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Ryan Boyd (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as being with the
Urban Phoenix Project and thanked the members for their great discussion. He
expressed that this TA is about options and that the Village, Planning Commission, and
based on appropriateness. He added that one of the reasons he supports to TA is
because of the Housing Phoenix Plan and its dire need for additional housing,
especially in small forms such as duplexes and multifamily which is best handled
through a form-based code. He added that the lowest intensity transects actually permit
a fairly suburban form of development and even for low density redevelopment, an
applicant would still need to navigate the 6 month rezoning process.
Sebastean Losch (registered in support of the item) introduced himself as a member of
Trillium, a local development group that’s based in the 19North Corridor. The WU Code
takes a thoughtful approach to its interaction with the adjacent street but also with
adjacent land uses. He concluded by thanking the audience and by stating that, Ken
Losch, who had registered to speak in support was not able to attend the meeting.
Bramley Paulin (registered neutral of the item) stated that the WU Code was
specifically designed for properties along the light rail and its standards encourage
reduced setbacks, increase of dwelling units, and reduction of parking. He stated that
this is not appropriate for all areas of the city and that it was not ever created for this
purpose. He stated that this request is an attack on established single-family residential
neighborhoods and that this is part of the city’s effort to add 50,000 dwelling units
throughout the city, including in established neighborhoods. He concluded by sharing
that 8 of the 12 VPCs that have heard the TA have recommended denial.
Larry Whitesell (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as the Co-Chair of
the Peak Neighborhood Association and explained that his concern is that this puts the
cart before the horse. Prior to the WU Code being allowed city-wide, there needs to be
a new type of General Plan Map that prescribes where each transect is appropriate.
Because no guidance exists, there will be no starting point for developers considering
an application. He concluded by stating that the city should not take on a major change
in the zoning ordinance if they don't have the resources to do it completely incorrectly.
Neal Haddad (registered in opposition to item) introduced himself as being from the
Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix and expressed his agreement with Mr.
Paulin and Mr. Whitesell. The WU Code only makes sense when transit is present and,
in Phoenix that area is limited so, he asked why does it make sense to expand a transit-
Page 392
oriented code to govern land that is not walkable and served by transit. He added that
the Congress for New Urbanism has stated that a form-based code should be
accompanied by a transect map that has been developed with public input to guide
density to where it belongs. At this stage, there are no standards or vision for how the
code will be applied.
STAFF RESPONSE
Klimek, staff, thanked the public speakers for their comments and input. He provided a
series of closing remarks. The WU Code was written to create high-quality and
pedestrian oriented development along the light rail but that, like any effective tool, the
WU Code was discovered to be the best tool for additional areas of the city. He stated
that the text amendment is pre-requisite to develop policy for how the code may be
most effectively deployed outside of light rail corridors because those conversations
would have been hypothetical without the ability to use it. The intent of this text
amendment is not to replace traditional zoning but instead to allow the flexibility to use it
where appropriate in areas such as village cores. The city has longed planned for
intensity in its village cores and, that level of policy guidance would be used to support
intensity whether through the WU Code or a traditional district and that this text
amendment does not support density anywhere and everywhere.
McBride asked again for confirmation that the TA does not rezone any property and
would only be allowed as an option where appropriate. Klimek confirmed that the TA
does not rezone property, does not modify any existing process, and that those
processes are intended to determine appropriateness. McBride concluded by stating
that she’s worked extensively with the Planning and Development Department on
zoning and development processes and found all representatives to be thoughtful and
diligent in their support of good development in appropriate locations. She added that it
isn’t up to the developer to determine appropriateness, it is up to staff, the community,
and the recommending bodies.
O’Connor asked if there is a minimum size threshold for the WU Code because, in his
experience, only areas of a certain magnitude can create walkability by creating multiple
complementary uses to attract and retain individuals. Klimek responded that the
walkability can be achieved at two scales. In large projects where they can create a
gravity onto themselves as described by Member O’Connor. But, also in smaller
projects that may exist at the periphery of an existing district or at an infill location where
a form-based approach allows a small project to contribute to the overall walkability of
the areas. An example of a large project is the redevelopment at Park Central Mall and
examples of small projects are the two infill subdivisions described earlier in the
discussion.
Vice Chair Jaramillo asked how a transect map would look compared to the city’s
existing General Plan Land Use Maps. Klimek responded that the existing General
Plan Map provides guidance on land use and intensity for every parcel in the city, such
as “residential 10-15 dwelling units per acre.” A transect map would also touch every
property, or every property where it can apply, and would prescribe what transect or
Page 393
transects would be appropriate and exactly where. If the city were transitioning entirely
to a transect based development ordinance, a transect based land use map would be
prudent. However, the TA proposes the WU Code as a small part of all zoning tools and
therefore a new map is not required.
FLOOR/PUBLIC DISCUSSION CLOSED: MOTION, DISCUSSION, AND VOTE
MOTION:
McBride motioned to approve the require per the staff recommendation contained in
Addendum A. Sommacampagna seconded the motion.
DISCUSSION:
Alauria stated that she will be abstaining because she does not feel the committee has
enough information.
Argiro stated that he would be more inclined to support the request if it were restricted
geographically but indicated the limited amount of information makes him nervous. He
stated that he will be voting no.
Chair Krentz asked staff if the committee could make a motion that includes a
geographic restriction to, for example, village cores, urban centers, and transit corridors.
Klimek responded that, if so inclined, the committee can recommend approval with
specific geographic restrictions, but he noted that there is presently a motion on the
floor with a second so that motion would need to be rescinded or voluntarily withdrawn.
Barraza stated that the existing processes offer sufficient protections through staff
review, public input, and public hearings and will therefore support the motion.
Perez thanked her colleagues and the public speakers for adding depth to the
conversation.
VOTE: 11-2-2, motion passes with, Barraza, Carrell, Larson, McBride, , O'Hara, Perez,
Sommacampagna, Steinmetz, Veidmark, Whitney, and Chair Krentz in favor; Argiro,
and Vice Chair Jaramillo in dissent; Alauria and O'Connor in abstention.
Page 394
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 4, 2021
Amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance to expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code
Request boundaries citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning
Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect
Districts
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 16-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the WU Code came to fruition in the first place. He went over
what this Text Amendment request would update to include the expansion on
the WU Code boundaries, amendment of the zoning fee schedule, and minimum
acreage limitations for Charter Schools. Mr. Simmons elaborated on why
expanding the WU-Code boundaries would help the growth of the City of
Phoenix. He shared that it would support the Housing Phoenix Plan, it would
promote pedestrian oriented design and set no limit on dwelling unit density.
Further, Mr. Simmons shared that the Kierland area has largely redeveloped
through PUD rezoning requests, which utilize WU-Code standards in the PUD
narratives. Mr. Simmons also went over WU-Code design standards, which
focus on design rather than land use, a form based code. Mr. Simmons shared
the hearing schedule with the committee, stating that this will come back in front
of them for recommendation in the near term.
VPC Response:
Mr. Roy Wise asked staff what the advantages are for this request.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, explained to the committee that future prospective
applicants will be able to consider opting for WU Code rather than a PUD
request as the development standards are similar. PUD cases often utilize WU
Code standards. He explained that WU Code requests do not require an
applicant to host two neighborhood meetings or go to Village twice prior to
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 395
Central City Village Planning Committee
Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
October 04, 2021
Page 2
moving forward to Planning Commission and City Council like the PUD
requirements mandate.
MOTION:
Mr. Robert Goodhue made a motion to recommend approval of Text
Amendment Case No. Z-TA-3-19, per the staff recommendation.
Mr. Alex Popovic seconded the motion.
VOTE:
16-0 with committee members Balderrama, Bowman, DiMassa, Gerst,
Goodhue, Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic, Severs, Sparks, Ward,
Wise, Lesher and Gubser in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 396
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 12, 2021
Request Presentation, discussion, and possible recommendation
regarding a request to amend Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to expand the Walkable
Urban (WU) Code boundaries citywide and amend
Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
WU Code Transect Districts and administrative
temporary use permits.
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 3-2
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre stated that the intent of Z-TA-3-19 is to allow the Walkable Urban (WU)
Code to be applied to properties citywide. She stated that this will allow property
owners along future light rail extensions, within Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
policy plan areas, and other appropriate areas of the City to request rezoning to rezone
to WU Code.
Julianna Pierre explained that the text amendment will remove geographic restrictions
on WU Code, allow property owners to apply to rezoned to WU Code, and update
standards regarding single family attached residential development outside TOD
districts. She clarified that the text amendment will not automatically rezone any
property or modify the rezoning process.
Julianna Pierre discussed the revisions in Addendum A, which include the applicability
of regulatory overlay districts and plans and Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees.
She clarified that WU Code would not eliminate Overlay Zoning Districts,
Redevelopment Areas, Special Planning Districts, or Specific Plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the existing zoning tools used to address density and scale,
such as density waivers, height waivers, Mid-Rise District, High Rise District, and
Residential Infill District. She stated that if the text amendment were approved,
applicants requesting WU Code would still be required to go through the standard
rezoning process. She stated that the rezoning evaluation included the pre-application
meeting, post-application meeting, and public hearings. She added that the public
hearings would allow for public input. She also provided examples of low-density
products that were developed under WU Code zoning.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 397
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked about how WU Code would be implemented.
Julianna Pierre explained that applicants would request a WU Code transect and
would have to go through the standard rezoning process. She explained that during the
rezoning process, staff would evaluate whether the requested transect is appropriate.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna asked to explain form-based code and how it is
different from traditional zoning. Julianna Pierre explained that form-based code is
focused on design while traditional zoning is more focused on land use standards. She
stated that form-based code can give greater diversity in housing options and WU
Code, specifically, prioritizes the pedestrian environment.
Bramley Paulin, a member of the public, stated that he had concerns about transects
and how they would be implemented throughout the City. He stated that there is no
certainty as to where high density would be requested and it could be built directly
adjacent to single-family neighborhoods.
Larry Whitesell, a member of the public, stated that WU Code would allow 0-foot
setbacks, increased density, and increased height where it does not belong. He stated
that WU Code is not applicable citywide. He added that the text amendment should, at
least, be accompanied with transect maps.
Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau asked for clarification regarding regulatory standards.
Julianna Pierre stated that regulatory standards in specified zoning districts, regulatory
standards and plans would prevail over WU Code. Committee member Chris
Gonzalez stated that he had concerns not knowing all the specific conflicts that could
arise between WU Code, the Zoning Ordinance, and other regulatory plans.
Chair Massimo Sommacampagna stated that he had concerns with the lack of public
input and the text amendment possibly allowing additional leeway for developers. He
added that the text amendment may not be needed in the Rio Vista Village.
Julianna Pierre asked if the VPC felt that the text amendment was applicable to
specific geographic areas, such as Village Cores or along transit lines. Vice Chair
Steven Scharboneau expressed concerns since the current Rio Vista Village Core is
not located where it should be in the Village. Julianna Pierre and the committee
members discussed possible language that could be used if the text amendment was
approved with a modification restricting application to specific geographic areas.
MOTION: Committee member Ozzie Virgil made a motion to deny Z-TA-3-19. The
motion was seconded by Vice Chair Steven Scharboneau.
VOTE: 3-2 with Committee members Scharboneau, Virgil, and Gonzalez in favor and
Committee members Sommacampagna and Lawrence in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 398
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-TA-3-19
Date of VPC Meeting October 12, 2021
Request Presentation and discussion on a request to amend
Chapters 3, 5 and 13 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance to
expand the Walkable Urban (WU) Code boundaries
citywide and amend Appendix A - Zoning Fee Schedule to
include fees for WU Code Transect Districts.
Recommendation Denial
Vote 5-4-1; Members Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Smith and
Marchuk in favor; Members Brooks, Muhammad, Viera
and Daniels in dissent; Member Aldama abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Two members of the public registered to speak on this item.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on this
citywide text amendment case Z-TA-3-19. He provided a summary of the request
involving the expansion of the Walkable Urban (WU) code applicability area, noting
the existing boundaries where WU code is available today. He discussed the need
for this text amendment given the expansion of mass-transit to other parts of the
city. The various WU Code Transects were explained, providing examples of low,
medium and high-intensity transects. This proposal would allow property owners to
rezone to WU Code citywide and update standards regarding single-family attached
standards outside of TOD areas. This proposal does not rezone any property, does
not modify the current rezoning process, does not modify the applicability or
standards of adopted City policy plans including TOD District plans. Addendum A of
the staff report revises applicability of regulatory overlay districts and plans, plus
adds Administrative Temporary Use Permit fees. An overview of existing zoning
tools, rezoning evaluation process and impacts was provided. Staff recommends
approval per Addendum A of the staff report and discussed the schedule for this
case.
Greg Brownell asked the following questions:
• What is the enforceability with the process for this text amendment?
• How will deviations from WU Code standards be enforced?
• How will the city enforce standards in the WU Code?
Page 399
Mr. Bojórquez responded that cases seeking to rezone to WU Code would follow
the same process as any other rezoning case. Proposals to deviate from the WU
Code standards would require a variance, which undergoes a separate public
hearing process from a rezoning case. The city would enforce the standards in the
WU Code just like it would enforce any other standards in another rezoning case,
as required by the Zoning Ordinance or adopted Ordinance.
Vice Chair Marchuk is pleased with the changes made to the original proposal, but
still believes that some areas of the Village are not walkable. He asked if there is a
“Walk Score” or General Plan component to the Walkable Urban Code. Mr.
Bojórquez discussed the proposal and the analysis process that cases seeking
rezoning undergo. The WU Code would be an option citywide as currently
proposed.
Marcia Busching has had lots of conversations regarding this request and
appreciates Addendum A of the staff report to help clarify some of the conflicts. She
has two major concerns regarding the request that pertain to the applicability of WU
Code citywide and also that there is nothing walkable about this. She asked how
many Village Planning Committee’s had heard this text amendment case. Mr.
Bojórquez responded that only a few VPC’s had heard this case so far, and the
recommendations varied.
Muriel Smith agrees with Ms. Busching and feels that this is best suited to areas in
Downtown Phoenix. The committee could look at this proposal another time in the
future.
Mr. Brownell is a fan of the WU Code, but feels that these efforts are missing
something important.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Mr. Brownell and has concerns about the
execution or implementation of this code.
Chairwoman Daniels likes the WU Code overall and added that other cities are
using something similar. She talked about the benefits that the WU Code would
bring to parts of the South Mountain Village, especially between 7th Avenue to 7th
Street. She discussed density and character, adding that we are planning for the
future 20 to 30 years out. She then asked for public comment on this case.
Neal Haddad, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that he is
opposed to this proposal. The WU Code only works where transit is present, not
citywide as there is a need for a transect map. He discussed issues with the
existing bus network, adding that there is no vision document to help with the
desired results. The WU Code gives height and density in addition to a parking
waiver. Village Planning Committees do not understand this text amendment.
Page 400
Bramley Paulin, member of the public, introduced himself and has concerns with
this text amendment case. No public input has been obtained whatsoever and has
concerns with the proposed height and density standards associated with WU
Code. He has process-related concerns, cited issues for single-family and rural
neighborhoods. He encourages the committee to deny this request.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if a subcommittee could be formed to discuss this text
amendment request. Mr. Bojórquez responded that forming a subcommittee was
not possible at this time due to the limitations provided at the last meeting by staff.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if a continuance for this case would be possible. Mr.
Bojórquez responded that staff would prefer to maintain the current schedule as all
VPC’s are expected to provide a recommendation this month before the case goes
to Planning Commission in early November.
Fatima Muhammad Roque asked if staff would repeat some of the possible
geographic boundaries where WU Code could be restricted to.
Mr. Bojórquez responded that the committee could limit the applicability of WU
Code to Village Cores or along mass-transit corridors, among other possible
boundary restrictions.
Ms. Busching has concerns with approving this case with more defined geographic
boundaries without additional time to analyze these boundaries. Mr. Bojórquez
provided an overview of the request and added that the committee has the ability to
add more defined geographic boundaries if this would alleviate some of the
concerns voiced during the meeting.
MOTION:
Ms. Shepard motioned to deny case Z-TA-3-19. Ms. Busching seconded the
motion to deny.
DISCUSSION:
George Brooks prefers to continue this case to a future meeting. Mr. Brownell
agrees with Ms. Bushing’s comments. Vice Chair Marchuk added that additional
time to analyze any changes would be helpful.
VOTE:
5-4-1, motion passed; Members Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Smith and
Marchuk in favor; Members Brooks, Muhammad, Viera and Daniels in dissent;
Member Aldama abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 401
$WWDFKPHQW*
ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-TA-3-19
(Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule Update)
December 3, 2021
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3 (Decision Making and Administrative
Bodies), Chapter 5 (Development Review Procedures) and Chapter 13 (Walkable
Urban Code) of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU Code boundaries citywide,
including updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of WU Code process and
procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant to the expansion; and amend
the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for WU Code Transect Districts, Downtown
Code-Character Areas, and update fees for new processes.
Staff recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Z-TA-3-19 as shown in the
recommended text in Exhibit A.
The purpose of this Addendum is to address revisions to the recommended text in
Exhibit A. Below is a summary of the proposed revisions to the text amendment which
are also denoted as underlined text in Exhibit A.
1. Section 1301.C
New language is proposed to modify the Walkable Urban (WU) Code’s
applicability provision to allow the WU Code to apply to land uses, subdivisions,
and development within approved Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District
Boundaries as depicted on the Transit Oriented Communities Map (Exhibits A
and B).
During the Village Planning Committee (VPC) meetings, staff heard various
concerns regarding the proposed revisions in the Addendum A Staff Report to
expand WU Code applicability citywide. These concerns are summarized as
follows:
x Concerns regarding the compatibility of WU Code development
standards and design guidelines with established neighborhoods.
x Concerns regarding implementing the proposal without transect maps
for impacted properties.
x Preferences to limit WU Code applicability to major transit corridors,
bus rapid-transit corridors, light rail corridors, TOD districts, and/or
Village Cores.
Page 402
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Two VPCs recommended approval with a modification to limit the proposed
expansion of WU Code applicability to either high-capacity transit corridors
(Ahwatukee Foothills) or high-capacity transit corridors and Village Cores
(Laveen).
The proposed revision addresses many of these concerns by limiting applicability
of the WU Code to the Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas and within
approved TOD district boundaries. The existing Ordinance language already
permits WU Code development in the Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas
and there is no change to this existing provision. The five existing Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plans are Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown,
and Solano.
New proposed language regarding approved TOD district boundaries would
expand applicability of the WU Code to the 19North, 50th Street Station Area,
Capitol Extension, I-10 West Extension, Northwest Extension Phase II, and
South Central TOD districts. These six TOD districts have defined geography
documented in Phoenix City Council adopted policy plans (19 North), Federal
Transit Administration planning grants (Capitol Extension, I-10 West Extension,
Northwest Extension Phase II, and South Central), or are located within close
proximity to an existing Valley Metro Rail station (50th Street Station Area).
Expanding applicability of the WU Code to these TOD districts is consistent with
the City’s significant planning and investment in public transit within these areas.
The proposal is also consistent with the recommendations of the Ahwatukee
Foothills and Laveen Village Planning Committees and responsive to concerns
raised in other VPC meetings.
The proposed revision includes a new map titled the “Transit Oriented
Communities Map” which depicts the boundaries of the five existing Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas and the six additional TOD districts as described
above. This map is included in the revised text (Exhibits A and B) to confirm the
proposed WU Code applicability area. Expansion of WU Code applicability
outside the areas depicted on this map would require a future text amendment to
this map and/or related text.
2. Section 1306.H.1.b
One minor revision is proposed to this section regarding use permit requirements
for interim vacant lot activation. Given the proposed revision to Section 1301.C it
is appropriate to permit property owners within areas depicted on the Transit
Oriented Communities Map, who do not meet the geographic restrictions outlined
in Section 1306.H.1, an opportunity to apply for a use permit for interim vacant lot
activation. This modification is consistent with the proposed expansion of WU
Code applicability and with the current process for properties within the
boundaries of the existing Reinvent Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas.
Page 403
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
3. Section 1311.A.1
One minor revision is proposed to this section regarding general design
development considerations to remove references to the names of the Reinvent
Phoenix TOD Policy Plan areas. This revision is solely to clarify that the stated
goal of encouraging walking and bicycling should apply to any property
designated with WU Code zoning.
4. Section 1313.D.3.a
One minor revision is proposed to this section to delete the Transit Oriented
Development Districts Map. This graphic is not referred to in Section 1313 and is
not referenced in any other Zoning Ordinance section. This map is unnecessary,
outdated, and conflicts with the Transit Oriented Communities Map proposed to
be added to Section 1301.C.
Transit Oriented Communities Map: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit B is a copy
of the Transit Oriented Communities Map which is depicted in Exhibit A – Proposed
Language in Section 1301.C.
Village Planning Committee meeting results: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit C
is a summary of the results of the Village Planning Committee meetings regarding the
proposal.
Correspondence: Included in this Addendum as Exhibit D are four pieces of
correspondence received by staff since the approval of the Addendum A Staff Report.
Exhibits
Exhibit A: Proposed Language (9 pages)
Exhibit B: Transit Oriented Communities Map (1 page)
Exhibit C: Village Planning Committee meeting results summary (3 Pages)
Exhibit D: Correspondence (5 pages)
Page 404
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
EXHIBIT A
Text Amendment Z-TA-3-19: Walkable Urban Code Expansion/Fee Schedule
Update
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and
duty under the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by
the development review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning
and Development Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of
design guidelines and architectural diversity standards, to review and approve
Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the
boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to review and approve design
alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH standards within the
boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to
read as follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative
or Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and
design guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to
properties within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the
specific intent of the subject Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design
Alternatives apply to properties within the boundaries of the WITH
Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a furtherance of the goals
and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Page 405
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and
the manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT
ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would
satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design
Alternatives that demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban
Code as set forth in Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies
contained within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano
TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS. The modifications must meet the standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement
the vision and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an
appropriate mixture and density of activity around transit stations; to increase
transit ridership in general and along the Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and to promote multiple modes of
transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to improve pedestrian safety
from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the public health,; to
decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of congestion and
pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing the
following:
***
Page 406
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented
District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD)
DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano. The boundaries of these areas are shown in the District Maps located in
the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano,
Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence
over diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR
THROUGH THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for
properties subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
Page 407
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall
prevail. PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP)
ZONING ARE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A
CONFLICT BETWEEN THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND
CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the
provisions of Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict
between the provisions of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of
Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE
REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL
PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA,
SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE
CONFLICTS OCCUR BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS,
REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR
SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OVERLAY
ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL PLANNING
DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES
SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all
transect districts except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615,
Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING FRONTAGE
Page 408
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS
ABUTTING PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY
ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION
608.F.8 AND SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR
THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED) IF IT MEETS ALL
THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED
DWELLING UNITS AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE
AREA FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT
OPTION OR THE INFILL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS
DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION 608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER
THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE),
AS MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO
FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback
standards as the single-family attached development option. If development
is adjacent to a single-family zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic
preservation designated property or district the following additional
requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO SINGLE-
FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION (SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH
ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached
dwellings. STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM
75-FOOT SETBACK FROM REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR
BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear
and side property lines for building height before maximum height
allowed. FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC
Page 409
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
PRESERVATION DESIGNATED PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A
MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE
REQUIRED WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT
OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH,
PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR DEDICATED
OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE
ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary
frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAY along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the
primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS,
OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary
frontage is designated by the Planning and Development Department,
AND all remaining frontages are designated secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage,
excluding driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area
between the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an
urban, pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the
WU Code.
***
Page 410
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all
PROPERTIES WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the
WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1306.H.1.b to read as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the
Transit District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and
Solano.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space
improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS
ARE as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least
five percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR
DEVELOPMENTS UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE SHALL BE PROVIDED AS
REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D, REGARDLESS
OF LOT SIZE.
***
Page 411
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as
follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre.*
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian
way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided
Landscaping by trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided
in areas with no pavement or
structures.
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE
AS REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Section 1311.A.1 (General Considerations) to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit
services, TRANSIT ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT
POLICY PLANS:
***
Amend Section 1313.D.3.a to remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
Page 412
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber
accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification
of zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by
appropriate fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES,
T6:7 $210.00 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP
TO 100 ACRES, AND $70.00
PER ACRE FOR MORE THAN
100 ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION
THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
Page 413
Exhibit A: Z-TA-3-19
December 3, 2021
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30%
OF THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
Page 414
(;+,%,7%
7UDQVLW2ULHQWHG&RPPXQLWLHV
Light Rail Stops
Light Rail
TOD Boundaries
ACOMA DR
Downtown Code
THUNDERBIRD RD
SWEETWATER AVE
TATUM BLVD
12TH ST
RD
CACTUS RD
CR
19TH AVE
23RD AVE
15TH AVE
EE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
CHOLLA ST K
21ST AVE
CA
VE
7TH ST
PEORIA AVE SHEA BLVD
Northwest
CHERYL DR Extension
Phase II FANFOL DR
HATCHER RD
DUNLAP AVE
BUTLER DR 18TH ST
NORTHERN AVE §
¦
¨
ORANGEWOOD AVE
19North
GLENDALE AVE
LIN
MARYLAND AVE CO
LN
DR
ROVEY AVE
7TH ST
BETHANY HOME RD
£
¤
Solano CAMELBACK RD
Uptown HIGHLAND AVE
CAMPBELL AVE CAMPBELL AVE
G
RA
23RD AVE 19TH AVE 15TH AVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 20TH ST 24TH ST 28TH ST 32ND ST 36TH ST 40TH ST 44TH ST 48TH ST
N
INDIAN SCHOOL RD D
AV
E
OSBORN RD
I-10 West THOMAS RD £
¤
Extension Midtown
OAK ST
Capitol Eastlake
Extension Garfield Gateway
MCDOWELL RD
50th Street
§
¨
¦
w
v
Station Area
CAP/I-10
Phase 1
Downtown £
¤143
WASHINGTON ST
39TH AVE 31ST AVE 27TH AVE
JEFFERSON ST
35TH AVE
GRANT ST
SKY HARBOR BLVD
£
¤
BUCKEYE RD
MOHAVE ST
WATKINS ST OLD TOWER RD
LOWER BUCKEYE RD UNIVERSITY DR
ELWOOD ST
BROADWAY RD
15TH AVE
ROESER RD
South Central
SOUTHERN AVE
59TH AVE 51ST AVE 47TH AVE 43RD AVE 10TH ST 12TH ST 16TH ST 20TH ST 24TH ST 28TH ST 32ND ST 36TH ST 40TH ST 44TH ST
VINEYARD RD
BASELINE RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
7TH ST
DOBBINS RD
OLNEY AVE
7TH AVE
CENTRAL AVE
\\pdss01gis\GIS\Projects\TOD_Area_Maps_Joel\MXD\Ordinance_TOD_Areas.mxd
Miles
0 0.5 1 2 3 4
Page 415
N
EXHIBIT &
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
Ahwatukee Foothills 7/26/2021 (No quorum) Concerns with not having sufficient time to 10/25/2021 Approval with a 6-4-1 Concerns with allowing TA citywide and
8/23/2021 (No quorum) review the information. General questions modification to expand only concerns with allowing TA in Village Cores as
9/27/2021 about what this TA does. Would like to review to high capacity transit the Ahwatukee Foothills Core is the most
the Addendum to this TA early. corridors. dangerous intersection in the Village.
Concerns with potential pedestrian conflicts.
Alhambra 7/27/2021 Concerns that this is a density giveaway. 10/26/2021 Denial 12-3-0 Concerns with lack of outreach to community.
Sensitivity regarding Christown Mall. Interest Concerns with lack of policy on how this will
regarding details of SFA with a preference be implemented. Concerns with compatibility
that this be a 1:1. with some established neighborhoods.
Concerns with WU Code being abused by
developers. Concern with eventual erosion of
evaluation process to proliferate density
citywide.
Camelback East 8/3/2021 No concerns at this time. Request to ensure 10/5/2021 Denial 10-2 Not enough information, TA is vague,
no language regarding charter schools is ambiguous, and "one-size-fits-all". Concern
included in proposed text. with WU Code being abused by developers
like PUDs currently are.
Central City 7/12/2021 More explanation needed regarding how the 10/11/2021 Approval 10-3 Concern with lack of outreach to community.
current WU Code fees were created, and are
there other parts of the WU Code that should
be updated to be more current.
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 No concerns 10/14/2021 Denial 4-3-1 Concerns that WU Code is not appropriate for
properties citywide. Should be implemented
on major transit corridors, BRT, Light Rail.
Concerns about increased density.
11/1/2021
Page 416
EXHIBIT B
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
Desert View 7/13/2021 (No quorum) Concerns that WU Code (specifically frontage 10/5/2021 Denial 6-1 Concerns that WU Code is not appropriate for
8/3/2021 standards) will not be compatible with the properties citywide.
southwestern character of the City. Concerns
that WU Code is not compatible with the Concerns about increased density.
Desert View Village. Concerns that the City is
pushing higher density. More explanation
needed regarding how the TA will affect HP
properties. More information required about
the creation of new TOD districts. Distance to
parks should be included in the analysis.
Encanto 7/12/2021 Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code 10/4/2021 Denial 8-0 Too many unknowns. Questions regarding
will draw development focus away from the what policy guidance exists on which
light rail corridors. Concerns with the lack of transects belong where. Concerns regarding
design review requirements for WU Code. lack of a transect map. Concerns regarding
Concerns with how the transects will be lack of public engagement.
implemented (i.e., policy basis) outside of
TOD corridors.
Estrella 7/20/2021 Concerns that the expansion of the WU Code 10/19/2021 Denial 7-0 WU Code is not compatible with parts of
will not be compatible with some parts of the Estrella Village which are not walkable. Open
Estrella Village such as the areas far west. to reconsidering alternatives such as limiting
the applicability to TOD districts and Village
Cores.
Laveen 7/12/2021 Request for further information regarding 10/11/2021 Approval with a 8-0 Concern with applicability of WU Code
implementation of WU Code and DRC modification to expand only outside of the context of transit areas.
process. Overall support. to Villlage Cores and high
capacity transit corridors.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 Concern with design standards for WU Code 10/13/2021 Approval 6-2 No concerns. More information requested
projects. regarding what the WU Code is and how it will
benefit Maryvale.
11/1/2021
Page 417
EXHIBIT B
Application No Z-TA-3-19: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c, and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A,
1304.F, 1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1; of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the WU-Code boundaries citywide; and amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee
Schedule) of the Zoning Ordinance to include fees for WU Code.
-
Village Planning Committee Summary Results
Information Session Recommendation
Village
Date Questions, Concerns Date Recommendation Vote Questions, Concerns
North Gateway 8/12/2021 No concerns 10/14/2021 Denial 4-0 Concerns that the City has not provided WU
Code transect maps. Concerns that WU
Code is not appropriate citywide. Concerns
that this will allow high density in residential
areas. Concerns about lack of public input.
Concerns that the text amendment lacks
specificity.
North Mountain 7/21/2021 No concerns 10/20/2021 Approval 11-2-2 Too many unknowns. Unclear what policy
guidance exists on which transects belong
where. Concerns regarding lack of public
engagement. Concerns regarding lack of a
transect map.
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 No concerns 10/4/2021 Approval 16-0 No concerns
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 No concerns 10/12/2021 Denial 3-2 Concerns that this would allow height where it
does not belong. States that the text
amendment should be accompanied by
transect maps. Concerns that they would not
know all conflicts between the WU Code and
remaining Zoning Ordinance. Concerns that
the TA is moving away from the original intent
of WU Code. WU Code is not appropriate
citywide.
South Mountain 7/13/2021 WU code should be focused along arterial 10/12/2021 Denial 5-4-1 Concerns regarding potential impacts of
streets. Concerns regarding WU code citywide expansion. Concerns regarding lack
governing over regulatory overlay districts of geographic boundaries to applicability,
(e.g., BAOD, FCOD, RSIO, etc.). such as Village Cores and high-capacity
transit corridors.
11/1/2021
Page 418
Attachment H
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 19
DISTRICT NO.: Citywide
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-TA-3-19 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
WU Code Expansion and Fee Updates
Proposal: Amend Chapter 3, Section 309.A; Chapter 5, Sections 507.G, 507.G.1.c,
and 507.G.4.c; Chapter 13, Sections 1301.B, 1301.C, 1303.A, 1304.F,
1305.A, 1306.A, 1310.A, and 1310, Table 1310.1 of the Zoning Ordinance
to expand the Walkable Urban Code boundaries citywide, including
updates to clarify relevant policy plans, clarification of Walkable Urban
Code process and procedure, and updating general lot standards relevant
to the expansion; amend the Zoning Fee Schedule to include fees for
Walkable Urban Code Transect Districts, Downtown Code-Character
Area, and update fees for new processes.
Applicant: City of Phoenix, Planning Commission
Representative: City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Department
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Ahwatukee Foothills 9/27/2021 Information only.
Ahwatukee Foothills 10/25/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a
modification. Vote: 6-4 (1 abstained).
Alhambra 7/27/2021 Information only.
Alhambra 10/26/2021 Denial. Vote: 13-3.
Camelback East 8/3/2021 Information only.
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 10-2.
Central City 7/12/2021 Information only.
Central City 10/11/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 10-3.
Deer Valley 8/12/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 10/14/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-3 (1 abstained).
Desert View 8/3/2021 Information only.
Desert View 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 6-1.
Encanto 7/12/2021 Information only.
Encanto 10/4/2021 Denial. Vote: 8-0.
Estrella 7/20/2021 Information only.
Estrella 10/19/2021 Denial. Vote: 7-0.
Page 419
Laveen 7/12/2021 Information only.
Laveen 10/11/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modification. Vote: 8-0.
Maryvale 7/14/2021 Information only.
Maryvale 10/13/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 6-2.
North Gateway 8/12/2021 Information only.
North Gateway 10/14/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-0.
North Mountain 7/21/2021 Information only.
North Mountain 10/20/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Vote: 11-2 (2 abstained).
Paradise Valley 7/12/2021 Information only.
Paradise Valley 10/4/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report. Vote: 16-0.
Rio Vista 7/13/2021 Information only.
Rio Vista 10/12/2021 Denial. Vote: 3-2.
South Mountain 7/13/2021 Information only.
South Mountain 10/12/2021 Denial. Vote: 5-4 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-TA-3-19, per the
Addendum B Staff Report.
Maker: Mangum
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes (Possibly registered in error)
Findings:
1. The expansion of WU Code applicability supports the goals of the Housing Phoenix
Plan.
2. The proposal will allow for WU Code applications within approved Transit Oriented
Development District boundaries as shown on the Transit Oriented Communities Map
within the proposed language.
Proposed Language:
Amend Section 309.A (Design Review Committee) to read as follows:
A. Powers and Duties. The Design Review Committee shall have the power and duty under
the provisions of these regulations to hear specific items appealed by the development
review applicant contesting decisions made by the Planning and Development
Department regarding the interpretation and implementation of design guidelines and
architectural diversity standards, to review and approve Design Alternatives and
Sustainability Bonuses for properties within the boundaries of the Downtown Code, and to
Page 420
review and approve design alternatives and modification to PROPERTIES WITH
standards within the boundaries of the Walkable Urban Code ZONING.
***
Amend Section 507.G (Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals) to read as
follows:
G. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals. A Design Alternative or
Sustainability Bonus Appeal is a deviation from the prescribed standards and design
guidelines. Design Alternatives and Sustainability Bonus Appeals apply to properties
within the boundary of the Downtown Code, which would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan and the specific intent of the subject
Character Area as approved by the DRC. Design Alternatives apply to properties within
the boundaries of the WITH Walkable Urban Code ZONING, which would result in a
furtherance of the goals and policies of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown
and Solano Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY
PLANS.
***
Amend Section 507.G.1.c to read as follows:
c. A narrative statement describing the justification for the Design Alternative and the
manner in which the proposed Design Alternative would result in a furtherance of the
goals and policies of the Downtown Phoenix Plan, or of the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield,
Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED Policy Plans, OR OTHER
RELEVANT POLICY PLANS and would satisfy the findings required for approval;
***
Amend Section 507.G.4.c to read as follows:
c. That the project demonstrates design excellence by addressing Design Alternatives that
demonstrate conformance with the intent of the Walkable Urban Code as set forth in
Section 1301.B and in general conformance with the policies contained within the
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano TOD TRANSIT ORIENTED
Policy Plans OR OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS. The modifications must meet the
standards set forth in Section 1313.
***
Amend Section 1301.B (Purpose and Intent) to read as follows:
B. Purpose and Intent. The primary purposeS of this chapter is ARE to implement the vision
and policies of the Transit Oriented District (TOD) Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-
Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano; encourage an appropriate mixture and density of
activity around transit stations; to increase transit ridership in general and along the
Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail Corridor in particular TRANSIT CORRIDORS; and
to promote multiple modes of transportation;. The secondary purpose of the Code to
improve pedestrian safety from crime,; to avoid or mitigate nuisances,; to promote the
public health,; to decrease automobile-dependence,; and to mitigate the effects of
congestion and pollution. These regulations seek to achieve these purposes by providing
the following:
Page 421
***
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land
uses, subdivisions, and development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District
Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED COMMUNITIES MAP for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano. The boundaries of these areas
are shown in the District Maps located in the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Solano, Midtown and Uptown.
1. When in conflict, text and numerical metrics in tables shall take precedence over
diagrams and illustrations. WALKABLE URBAN CODE TRANSECT
DISTRICTS ARE ZONING DISTRICTS AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR THROUGH
THE PROCEDURES OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
2. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Phoenix applies in its entirety for properties
subject to Chapter 13 except as follows:
a. If a conflict occurs between requirements of the WU Code and the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, the requirements of the WU Code shall prevail.
PROPERTIES WITH HISTORIC PRESERVATION (HP) ZONING ARE
SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8, HISTORIC
PRESERVATION. IN THE EVENT OF A CONFLICT BETWEEN THE
PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 8 AND CHAPTER 13, THE PROVISIONS OF
CHAPTER 8 SHALL PREVAIL.
Page 422
b. Properties with Historic Preservation (HP) zoning are subject to the provisions of
Chapter 8, Historic Preservation. In the event of a conflict between the provisions
of Chapter 8 and Chapter 13, the provisions of Chapter 8 shall prevail. IF A
CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE
SHALL PREVAIL. THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE DOES NOT ELIMINATE
ANY OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN. WHERE CONFLICTS OCCUR
BETWEEN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE AND
OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS, REDEVELOPMENT AREAS, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICTS, OR SPECIFIC PLANS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT AREA, SPECIAL
PLANNING DISTRICT, OR SPECIFIC PLAN SHALL APPLY.
C. IF A CONFLICT OCCURS BETWEEN REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE
URBAN CODE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX ZONING
ORDINANCE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WALKABLE URBAN CODE
SHALL PREVAIL.
3. WHEN IN CONFLICT, TEXT AND NUMERICAL METRICS IN TABLES SHALL TAKE
PRECEDENCE OVER DIAGRAMS AND ILLUSTRATIONS.
***
Amend Section 1303.A (General Lot Standards) to read as follows:
A. General Lot Standards.
1. The single-family attached development option (SFA) is allowed in all transect districts
except T3:2 and must meet sections 608.F.8 and 615, Table B.SUBDIVISIONS SHALL
COMPLY WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS PER THIS CHAPTER, INCLUDING
FRONTAGE STANDARDS, FOR ALL EXISTING AND NEWLY CREATED LOTS ABUTTING
PUBLIC STREETS, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, AND PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS, WITH THE
FOLLOWING CAVEATS:
a. A DEVELOPMENT MAY INSTEAD UTILIZE THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED
DEVELOPMENT OPTION STANDARDS PER SECTION 608.F.8 AND SECTION 614,
TABLE B, COLUMN D (EXCEPT FOR THE DENSITY, WHICH IS NOT RESTRICTED)
IF IT MEETS ALL THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
(1) THE DEVELOPMENT CONSISTS SOLELY OF ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS
AND ALLOWABLE ACCESSORY USES;
(2) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE APPLICABLE AREA FOR THE
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION OR THE INFILL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AS DEPICTED ON THE MAP PROVIDED IN SECTION
608.F.8; AND
(3) THE DEVELOPMENT IS LOCATED IN ANY TRANSECT OTHER THAN T3.
b. ALL SUBDIVISIONS MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE (CHAPTER 32 OF THE CITY CODE), AS MAY BE
Page 423
MODIFIED BY THE SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE TO FURTHER THE GOALS OF THE
WALKABLE URBAN CODE.
2. Development in T4, T5 and T6 shall follow the same setback and stepback standards as the
single-family attached development option. If development is adjacent to a single-family
zoning district (Sections 611, 613) or historic preservation designated property or district the
following additional requirements shall apply: ALL DEVELOPMENTS ADJACENT TO
SINGLE-FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS SHALL FOLLOW THE SAME SETBACK AND
STEPBACK STANDARDS AS THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
(SECTION 614, TABLE B, COLUMN D); WITH ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS AS
FOLLOWS:
a. Minimum ten-foot landscape setback, except for single-family detached dwellings.
STEPBACK PROVISION SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM 75-FOOT SETBACK FROM
REAR AND SIDE PROPERTY LINES FOR BUILDING HEIGHT BEFORE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLOWED.
b. Stepback provision shall not exceed maximum 75-foot setback from rear and side
property lines for building height before maximum height allowed. FOR ALL
DEVELOPMENT ABUTTING A HISTORIC PRESERVATION DESIGNATED
PROPERTY OR DISTRICT, A MINIMUM TEN-FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK SHALL
BE PROVIDED.
c. NO STEPBACK PROVISIONS OR LANDSCAPE SETBACKS ARE REQUIRED WHERE
THE DEVELOPMENT ABUTS A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE AT LEAST 40 FEET IN
DEPTH, SUCH AS A WASH, PRESERVE, PARK, EXISTING GOLF COURSE, OR
DEDICATED OPEN SPACE.
***
6. Primary Frontages. Lot lines abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR
PRIVATE DRIVEWAY are designated as primary frontage lineS or secondary frontage lineS
as follows:
a. For lots abutting a right-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAY, OR PRIVATE DRIVEWAY
along a single lot line, the abutting lot line is designated the primary frontage.
b. For lots abutting MULTIPLE rights-of-way, PRIVATE ACCESSWAYS, OR PRIVATE
DRIVEWAYS along multiple streets right-of-way, primary frontage is designated by the
Planning and Development Department, AND all remaining frontages are designated
secondary frontages.
***
Amend Section 1304.F.2 (Building and Shade) to read as follows:
2. Developments should include shading along their entire right-of-way frontage, excluding
driveways, loading, and service berths.
***
Amend Section 1305.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
Page 424
A. Applicability. Standards and frontage types in this section regulate the area between
the property line and the front facade of a building in order to support an urban,
pedestrian and transit oriented environment within the boundaries of the WU Code.
***
Amend Section 1306.A (Applicability) to read as follows:
A. Applicability. The Land Use Matrix in Table 1306.1 shall apply to all PROPERTIES
WITH WALKABLE URBAN CODE ZONING land uses within the WU Code boundaries.
***
Amend Section 1306.H.1.b to read as follows:
b. Allowed with use permit if property outside the areas noted above but within the Transit
District Policy Plans for Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano.
***
Amend Section 1310.A (Open Space Guidelines) to read as follows:
A. Open Space Guidelines
1. Parcels zoned T3 are exempt from required public OPEN space improvements.
2. Open space requirements for commercial, nonresidential and mixed-use
development DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE T4, T5, AND T6 TRANSECTS ARE
as follows:
a. For sites of one gross acre or larger, minimum open space of at least five
percent of the gross lot SITE area shall be required. FOR DEVELOPMENTS
UTILIZING THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT OPTION
STANDARDS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 1303.A.1.A, OPEN SPACE
SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 614, TABLE B,
COLUMN D, REGARDLESS OF LOT SIZE.
***
Amend Section 1310, Table 1310.1 (Public Space Type Guidelines) to read as follows:
Table 1310.1 Public OPEN Space Type Guidelines
PUBLIC OPEN SPACES
Transect Zone T4, T5, T6
Size Five percent of the gross site
area above one acre. *
Edge Condition One side minimum fronting a
thoroughfare or pedestrian way.
Surface Paved and landscaped.
Shade and 50 percent shade provided by
Landscaping trees. Ground cover and
shrubs: Should be provided in
areas with no pavement or
structures.
Page 425
*SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENTS MUST PROVIDE OPEN SPACE AS
REQUIRED PER SECTION 1310.A.2.A.
***
Amend Section 1311.A.1 (General Considerations) to read as follows:
c. Walking and bicycling should be encouraged within the Gateway, Eastlake-Garfield,
Midtown, Uptown and Solano Districts, particularly in support of transit services, TRANSIT
ORIENTED POLICY PLANS, AND OTHER RELEVANT POLICY PLANS:
***
Amend Section 1313.D.3.a to remove the map and read as follows:
a. An approval from the DRC shall be included on the final site plan.
Transit Oriented Development Districts Map
***
Amend Appendix A (Zoning Fee Schedule) to read as follows and renumber accordingly:
1 [Fee schedules].
A. Applications for zoning amendments, hillside density waivers, written certification of
zoning, promotional event permits, and specific plans shall be accompanied by appropriate
fees as determined from the following schedule:
1. Fees.
***
7. REZONING TO WALKABLE URBAN (WU) CODE
A. T3:2, T4:2, AND $2,655.00 PLUS $210.00 PER
T4:3 ACRE OR PORTION THEREOF
B. T5:2, T5:3, T5:5, $3,910.00 PLUS $415.00 PER
T5:6, T5:7, AND ACRE UP TO 40 ACRES, $210.00
T6:7 FOR
MORE THAN 40 ACRES UP TO
100 ACRES, AND $70.00 PER
Page 426
ACRE FOR MORE THAN 100
ACRES
C. T6:15 AND T6:22 $8,610.00 PLUS $830.00 PER
ACRE OR PORTION THEREOF
D. T6:HWR IF PART OF THE ORIGINAL
ZONING REQUEST, NO
ADDITIONAL FEE. IF A
SEPARATE REQUEST, 30% OF
THE
T6:15 OR T6:22 FILING FEE
APPLICABLE TO THE
PROPERTY.
***
21. ADMINISTRATIVE $135.00
TEMPORARY USE PERMIT
***
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 427
Attachment I
David O Simmons
From: Bramley Paulin
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:45 PM
To: PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Z-TA-3-19 Walkable Urban (WU) Code - RECONSIDERATION VOTE
Good evening Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Members
I am asking the PV committee members for a reconsideration vote from the October 4, 2021, Item #3 Z-TA-3-19
Walkable Urban (WU) Code.
The presentation details did not address the negative impacts and ramification to existing neighborhoods.
This Text Amendment (TA) will promote bad high density residential development that will undoubtedly have a negative
effect on existing detached residential neighborhoods.
The impacts of the WU Code expansion will adversely change the character of existing neighborhoods with increased
vehicular traffic and increase building height.
The original WU Code was specifically designed for properties within close proximity to light rail by reducing vehicle use
and creating urban density within walking distance to transit stations.
Of the four villages that have heard this TA to date, PV is the only committee to support the amendment. Both Encanto
and East Camelback villages, who have light rail transit within their boundaries and work with the WU Code on a regular
basis, voted overwhelmingly to deny the expansion of the WU Code city-wide.
I therefore, respectfully ask that one or more committee members who voted in favor of the TA, submit a written
request to the committee planner Mr. Simmons, within the next 48-hours, asking for a reconsider vote to take place at
the next committee meeting.
With Appreciation,
Bramley Paulin
(602) 918-2998
Page 428
VISION
Every Arizonan has a safe, affordable place to call home.
MISSION
The Arizona Housing Coalition (AZHC) is a collaborative association
that leads in the efforts to end homelessness and provide safe,
affordable housing to all Arizonans.
Speaking Up for Home and Hope
Phoenix City Hall
200 W Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003 November 1st, 2021
Dear Mayor Gallego and Council Members,
On behalf of the Arizona Housing Coalition and our members, I am writing in regard to item #21, Z-TA-3-19,
the expansion of the Walkable Urban Code, that will be heard at the planning commission at 6pm on
Thursday, November 4 2021.
The expansion of the Walkable Urban Code is a critical component of the Housing Phoenix Plan, which
was adopted by council in summer of 2020. Since the adoption of this plan, the affordable housing crisis in
the city has deepened. Rents have increased by 28% in the last year and are approaching the most
expensive in the county. The housing crisis in Phoenix is considered at breaking point with high occupancy
rates and the fewest available units in 50 years. The number of households experiencing homelessness in
Maricopa County has risen significantly between April 2020 to August 2021 and our homeless services are
in huge demand. Finding units for low income households has become incredibly difficult in the city,
resulting in these increases in homelessness, including a significant spike in elderly homelessness.
Restricting housing to single family detached forces rents and home prices to rise. This historical zoning
practice also creates segregated neighborhoods. The expansion of the Walkable Urban Code is a critical
tool to address barriers to increasing affordable housing in the city of Phoenix by allowing greater density
and addressing the missing middle of development. The ability to build duplexes, triplexes and fourplexes
will allow an increase in density that does not compromise the landscape of the city. Allowing diverse
housing options, the code will allow the 15 villages to accomplish their goals of creating mixed-use,
walkable urban cores.
Considering the extent of the growing housing crisis in the city of Phoenix, it is essential that the tools and
practices passed in the Housing Phoenix Plan are adopted. We therefore strongly support the expansion of
the Walkable Urban Code.
Sincerely,
Joanna Carr
Director of Research and Policy
The Arizona Housing Coalition
1495 E. Osborn Road,| Phoenix, AZ 85014 | (602) 340-9393 | azhousingcoalition.org
Page 429
Re: Z-TA-3-19 expanding the Walkable Urban Code
Dear Members of the Encanto Village:
As a person who gave up their car over 5 years ago and depends on public transit and her feet to get
around Phoenix, whenever I see codes or language of codes that refer to an area being “walkable,” I
laugh. Why? Because I strongly suspect that the person/people who write such codes have book
learning, but little practical experience in walking.
I also wonder/question, who are these codes going to help? Me the pedestrian???? While that might
have been the original intention, the end result and my conclusion is NO, it is not really for my benefit as
a pedestrian. To be really cynical, it appears that this code is more for a developer’s purpose and making
the city appear to care about pedestrians.
In fact, often the recommendations are antithetical to a pedestrian feeling the area is “walkable.” What
do I mean by that?
1. Walkable should mean safe. Safe from speeding cars and safe from bicycles (which in my
opinion do NOT BELONG ON SIDEWALKS).
2. So a reasonable barrier of at least two feet should be mandated between the sidewalk and the
street.
3. BUT, so many of the new multi-housing tracts going up are rather close to the sidewalk and
provide a “looming” feel. One expects buildings to be up to the sidewalk when they are
department stores and office buildings such as we find downtown. But I prefer having space
between me and a residential high-rise and I wonder if the residents appreciate pedestrians
being that close.
4. And what do so many people address when focusing on something being walkable??? Of course,
it’s shade. Despite the city’s desire to have more shade, it continues to fail miserably. It’s
difficult to know why that happens.
5. I recall reading a number of years ago reading about buildings needing to provide 75% shade at
the summer solstice. Sounds great doesn’t it? But the summer solstice is in June and our hottest
months are July, August, September (and sometimes even into October). Wouldn’t you think
that 75% shade coverage should include those months too?
6. How do we achieve shade for the walkable environment? First we must understand the sun’s
path especially during the hottest months. East/west running streets are trickier to handle, but
north/south are easier. (By the way, a clear example of the problem is looking at the Light Rail
Stops….shade. HA!) But we pedestrians beg for shade all day during those blisteringly hot
months so trees need to be placed on both sides of the sidewalk to form a canopy (and please
no thinning them during the summer months). That defeats the entire purpose of having trees.
And for those who do not know me, I don’t leave home without my large personal shade
structure better known as an umbrella.
7. While it is not part of the WU Code, my safety should include crossing the street. Recently I was
nearly hit twice in the same section of a crosswalk within less than 10 seconds by drivers who
did not care that they were breaking the law and certainly did not care that I was a potential
impediment to them making their respective right and left hand turns. The intersection was
none other than 7th Street & McDowell Road. It is scary out there.
Page 430
Rather than continue going over the current issues/failings of the basic WU Code, I would hope you as a
recommending body would suggest that the city (planning department) re-examine my points and call in
some pedestrians to discuss these issues and how they can be rectified before expanding the areas of
the city that WU Code will cover. We could have a win-win situation and Phoenix could be seen as a
national leader in the implementation of an excellent Walkable Urban Code.
After working and living downtown for over 20 years, I know which streets have the most shade for
pedestrians (shade for cars does not count) and which side of the street I should walk on depending on
the direction and the time of day. I’d be more than happy to give you some tips.
A concerned citizen who knows we can do better.
Donna Reiner, PhD
2501 N 8th St.
Phoenix, AZ 85006-1049
Page 431
November 19, 2021
Alan Stephenson
Director, Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
RE: Position on Z-TA-3-19 Walkable Urban Code Expansion
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
The Downtown Voices Coalition Steering Committee supports allowing parcels to be rezoned to Walkable Urban
Code in the locations outlined below. Downtown Voices is currently neutral on all other city-wide expansions of
Walkable Urban Code.
● Light Rail: Within 1/2 mile of all current and future designated light rail lines
● Bus Rapid Transit (BRT): Within 1/2 mile of all current and future designated BRT lines
● Village Cores: Within the primary and secondary Village Cores as designated on the General Plan Map
● Canals: Directly adjacent to the City canal system with the canal designated as an active frontage
● Rio Salado: Within the bounds of the Rio Salado Overlay District. Where applicable, a designated public
setback and active river frontage shall also be required. Encouragement to extend this corridor east with
consideration for Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport operations.
Thank you for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely yours,
Jeff Sherman
Steering Committee Chair
jeff.sherman@downtownvoices.org
cc: The Honorable Kate Gallego, Mayor
Phoenix City Council Members
DVC Steering Committee Members
A community organization working to make Downtown Phoenix sustainable for all through
smart growth, great neighborhoods, vibrant ideas, and honest, open discussion...
downtownvoices.org / @downtownvoices / info@downtownvoices.org
Page 432
Racelle Escolar
From: Ryan Boyd
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 4:09 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Request to Speak & Comments Item #19 Planning Commission Z-TA-3-19
Attachments: Proposed WU Code T3-2 Applicability Language.docx; UPP Supports Vision Zero Fact Sheet.pdf
Good afternoon Planning Commission Staff,
I am writing to request to speak in support of item #19, Z‐TA‐3‐19, at the Planning Commission on 01/06/2022.
Additionally, I'd like to submit the following written comments:
Honorable Planning Commissioners, I ask that you approve Z‐TA‐3‐19 but with a slight amendment that would allow
the T3:2 transect district to be available for property owners to apply to anywhere within the City of Phoenix.
The WU Code is very much a necessity along the transit‐oriented development districts and I doubt you will hear much
opposition about offering it as an option in the areas in addendum B. Frankly, transit‐oriented development should be
expanded to incorporate the bus rapid transit lines as well as the light rail as high‐capacity transit allows denser living
and supports transit. We often find ourselves in a catch‐22 in which individuals tell us we can't build quality public
transit because there aren't enough people nearby, and yet we legally restrict the amount of housing that we can build
because it would cause too much traffic without quality public transit. Expanding the WU Code applicability around
high‐capacity transit is common sense and the proposal in addendum B is the least the City of Phoenix can do.
However, the City of Phoenix has a larger housing problem that this text amendment originally sought to
address. Phoenix continues to be one of the fastest growing cities and the Housing Phoenix Plan noted we are
underproducing housing units to the tune of a gap of 163,067 units. If we were to attempt to build these units with
single‐family detached housing it would require 31,613 acres of land, but the City of Phoenix only has 24,928 acres of
vacant land. Phoenix would need 7,315 acres more of vacant land and to build only single‐family detached housing to
meet this gap, simply put you can not build enough low‐density housing to meet the need.
The Housing Plan recognized that and noted that we should expand the Walkable Urban Code among other tools to
allow further housing options and diversity. Many types of housing are illegal under the current zoning code.
Would you like to build townhouses or a duplex? The single‐family attached option is only legal in central Phoenix on
this map from ZO 608.F.8.
Page1 433
Would you like to build a triplex or a fourplex? Those do not appear to be allowed in the R1‐06 and lower density
zoning districts. They are also subject to commercial permitting making them harder to build.
Would you like to build an 8‐unit apartment complex? To rezone to a district that allows it also allows much larger
project in R‐5 and R‐3. If you can build a much bigger project, why stop at just 8 units if it is going to cost you the same
amount to rezone the property?
Phoenix lacks middle housing zoning. R1‐06 [phoenix.municipal.codes], one of the most common single‐family zoning
districts and one of the densest has a dwelling limit of 5 units per acre or for comparison purposes 10 units per 2 acres.
That's less dense than several older Phoenix neighborhoods. There are 10 units on 1.8 acres in Encanto and 10 units on
1.5 acres in Oakland neighborhood. R‐2 [phoenix.municipal.codes], a rarer multifamily zoning allows 20 units on the
same 2 acres but still restricts the attached housing option to the above map. Phoenix does not have a district in
between these.
WU Code T3:2 is a logical in‐between district that should be available for Phoenix neighborhoods to discuss using. ZO‐
1302 [phoenix.municipal.codes] and ZO‐1303 [phoenix.municipal.codes] describe this low‐intensity district and it is
the same as R1‐06 except that it allows single‐family attached, duplexes, live‐work, day care, accessory dwelling units,
professional offices and interim vacant lot uses. WU Code T3:2 has the same height limitation as R1‐06 and same
mandatory minimum parking outside of the light rail districts and slightly less restrictive lot coverage requirements.
If Phoenix is to stand any chance of meeting that housing gap of 163,067 units, we must legalize more housing options
to be built in Phoenix. Is this a silver bullet? No, but we can't even begin talking about addressing the affordability crisis
unless there are actual housing units available for people.
Let's plan and build our communities with a variety of options for denser development. If we don't, people are going to
be forced to make tough decisions and these single‐family detached neighborhoods might see multiple families living in
one house creating the very problems they fear from multi‐family development.
Page2 434
Please vote to approve Z‐TA‐3‐19 addendum B WITH an amendment to allow WU Code T3:2 be requested anywhere
in the City. Language is in the attachment.
Please let me know if you have any questions or requests for data. I intend to speak at the 01/06/2022 Planning
Commission to bring up these points.
Thank you for your time,
Ryan Boyd
Mobile: 602‐799‐4478
Interim President, Urban Phoenix Project [urbanphoenixproject.org]
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Page3 435
Amend Section 1301.C (Applicability) to read as follows:
C. Applicability. The Walkable Urban Code may be applied and is limited to land uses, subdivisions, and
development within the Reinvent PHX Transit Oriented District Policy Plans APPROVED TRANSIT
ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AS DEPICTED ON THE TRANSIT ORIENTED
COMMUNITIES MAP for Gateway, Eastlake‐Garfield, Midtown, Uptown and Solano. The boundaries of
these areas are shown in the District Maps located in the Transit Oriented District Policy Plans for
Gateway, Eastlake‐Garfield, Solano, Midtown and Uptown. TRANSECT DISTRICT T3:2 IS APPLICABLE
ANYWHERE WITHIN THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND MAY BE APPLIED FOR THROUGH THE PROCEDURES
OUTLINED IN SECTION 506.B.
Page 436
Urban Phoenix Project
SUPPORTS
Vision Zero in the Roadway Safety
Action Plan
Item #10 - TIP Subcommittee
Why Vision Zero?
Phoenix has disproportionately more collisions with pedestrians AND bicyclists
than the region. Pop.: 36% of Region. Ped. Crashes: 63%. Bike Crashes: 43%.
Phoenix has not reduced fatalities and significant injuries in a measurable
manner. Action is needed from the perspective of saving lives.
Vision Zero is: Vision Zero is NOT:
A new way to look at our roads. One-size-fits-all. Actions and
Instead of assuming accidents plans remain individualized for
do not happen, Vision Zero neighborhoods and streets. The
accepts that humans are fallible goal is simply to reduce fatalities
and designs streets so those to zero in all of these areas.
accidents don't turn fatal. A citywide reduction of speed
Data-driven. We look at internal limits. Council makes those
data, best practices from across decisions separately and
the globe and consults the individually. Tempe did not set all
community before of its speed limits to 25 mph.
recommendations are made. A silver bullet. We know that
Widely-adopted. Adopting there will still be fatalities on the
jurisdictions include neighboring road system, but we should
urban Tempe, Southwestern actually try to fix this issue.
peer Albuquerque, East Coast Anti-motorist. Drivers get killed
New York City and even the too in these crashes. Safer
State of North Dakota. streets mean EVERYONE
makes it home.
For more information, contact Ryan Boyd at
RyanAndrewBoyd1@gmail.com.
Page 437
Urban Phoenix Project
SUPPORTS
Vision Zero in the Roadway Safety
Action Plan
Item #10 - TIP Subcommittee
What is worth more: one minute on your commute or a life?
Vision Zero is not pro-congestion and tactics do not seek to lessen the number
of drivers. The goal is to make sure EVERYONE lives.
As an example, a 5-mile trip at a constant speed takes only 48 seconds more if
you drove 40 mph rather than 45 mph. Congestion is a result of delay, not
speed. You can see this when people "race to red lights."
What can we do?
Work across disciplines. Vision Zero engages a multidiscipline approach. It
brings all stakeholders to the table including public health, land use,
development, engineering, and more.
There are many tools that work within a Vision Zero framework. For an
example, give pedestrians preference crossing compared to motorists
making turns. Turning is a major conflict area where if someone makes a
mistake, a pedestrian dies. Give the pedestrian time to cross the street
before the motorists attempt to make a turn.
Provide protection by separating bicyclists and pedestrians from high
speed traffic. Broken bollards are a lot easier to replace than broken
bones. Raised crosswalks, cycle tracks and traditional buffered and
protected bike lanes are all options.
Make sure everything we do is from a lens of equity. Vision Zero
emphasizes that all steps from research through implementation include
and center our diverse communities in the mission of saving lives.
ADOPT VISION ZERO NOW. Let's not waste any more time. ALL road
decisions should be centered around safe transportation.
For more information, contact Ryan Boyd at
RyanAndrewBoyd1@gmail.com.
Page 438
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning
Application Z-59-21-2 - Southwest Corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail Alignments (Ordinance G-6957)
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-59-21-2 and rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD
(approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to remove the PCD
designation and allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 NBCOD
Acreage: 31.97 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Applicant: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Representative: Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
4, 2021 and recommended denial by a vote of 4-1.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee reconsidered this case
on Jan. 13, 2022 and recommended approval, by a vote of 2-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with an additional stipulation,
and remanded the case back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee for
reconsideration by a vote of 7-2.
Location
Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments.
Page 439
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 440
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-59-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK, MID-
RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-2 NBCOD
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, NORTH BLACK CANYON
OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 31.97-acre site located at the southwest
corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments in a portion of Section 14,
Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby
changed from “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Page 441
Canyon Overlay District) to “C-2 NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th
Avenue frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet
between the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the
west side of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a
minimum of one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the
Paseo Del Prado, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date
stamped August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor
amenities and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk
Creek Wash shared use path along the western portion of the site, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 442
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and
continue through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for
the pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet
shall remain completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including
benches. The remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly
uses, such as benches
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for
the Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor
seating, and points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-
foot-wide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash
per Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of
75 percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings along
both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 443
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the
bicycle parking stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two
separate existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the
southwest corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25%
escrow contribution for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan
approval, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized
intersection of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement
shall be provided to APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized
intersection. Connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department prior to preliminary site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on
the east side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device
for a pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail
path, as depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to
fund a raised median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to
preliminary site plan approval and as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 444
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the
intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site
plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
Page 445
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 446
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-59-21-2:
A portion of land situated within the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 North,
Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more
particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found ½ inch rebar with cap RLS 21081 accepted as the center of
said Section 14 from which a 3-inch City of Phoenix brass cap flush accepted as the
South quarter corner thereof bears South 00°21’59” East, 2645.55 feet;
Thence North 89°32’56” East, 298.82 feet along the north line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section 14 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said north line, North 89°32'56" East, 1020.89 feet;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°22'06" East, 1323.84 feet along the east line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14;
Thence leaving said east line, South 89°35'43" West, 955.65 feet along the south line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of section 14;
Thence leaving said south line, North 27°14'19" West, 112.72 feet;
Thence North 23°38'35" West, 162.73 feet;
Thence North 12°33'41" West, 85.94 feet;
Thence North 10°17'39" West, 260.38 feet;
Thence North 00°00'00" West, 74.56 feet;
Thence North 26°10'19" East, 138.87 feet;
Thence North 22°17'03" East, 110.76 feet;
Thence North 01°31'03" West, 177.09 feet;
Thence North 02°41'57" West, 104.14 feet;
Thence North 02°41'55" West, 10.10 feet;
Thence North 06°07'50" East, 131.19 feet;
Thence North 06°32'08" East, 9.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 447
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 1,403,867 sq. ft. (32.2284
acres) more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of
record or otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 448
Page 449
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
North Gateway Village Planning November 4, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
Request From: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD
NBCOD) (31.97 acres)
Request To: C-2 NBCOD (31.97 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Community District removal and to
allow multifamily residential
Location: Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and
Bronco Butte Trail alignments
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Applicant Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Representative Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Primary Village Core, Mixed Use
General Plan Land Use Map Designation (Commercial/Commerce – Business
Park), Preserves/Floodplain
Not classified
29th Avenue Not dedicated
(Pending study)
Street Map
Classification
Not classified
Bronco Butte Trail Not dedicated
(Pending study)
Page 450
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS & CORRIDORS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Plan cores, centers and corridors to include a variety of
land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and cultural, housing, hotel and
resort, and where appropriate, some types of industry.
The proposal includes 354 single-story detached and attached units within the North
Gateway Village Core. The proposal will provide additional housing opportunities in the
Village within close proximity to and expanding W. L. Gore Campus and the proposed
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company site.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: DESIGN: Promote
neighborhood identity through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping
and character of the area. Each new development should contribute to the
character identified for the village.
The proposed development will comply with principles outlined in the North Gateway
Core Plan, North Black Canyon Corridor Plan, and North Black Canyon Overlay District.
The site will not only maintain the desert character, but also promote walkability and
connectivity through the Village Core by having pedestrian walkways along the Paseo
del Prado and Skunk Creek Wash.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
As stipulated, the site will provide shaded pedestrian paths. The enhanced shading will
create vibrant pedestrian spaces and reduce the urban heat island effect.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
North Gateway Village Core Plan: See Background Item Nos. 6 and 7.
North Black Canyon Corridor Plan: See Background Item No. 8.
North Black Canyon Overlay District: See Background Item No. 9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 13.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 14.
Page 451
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 15.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 16.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 17.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R
On Site Vacant
PCD NBCOD)
North Vacant C-2 M-R NBCOD
West Skunk Creek Wash FH PCD NBCOD
Vacant (proposed
East C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD
multifamily residential)
South PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R
Vacant
PCD NBCOD)
C-2 NBCOD
(Utilizing R-3 Development Standards – Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the Proposed
Standards R-3 Requirements
Site Plan
Gross Acreage - 31.97 acres
Maximum Total
487; 556 with bonus 354 units (Met)
Number of Units
Maximum Density
15.23; 17.40 with bonus 11.07 (Met)
(dwelling unit/acre)
Maximum Lot
45% 25% (Met)
Coverage
Maximum Building 2 stories or 30 feet for first
Height 150 feet; building height may
be increased by 1 foot for
1 story and 20 feet (Met)
every 5 feet of increased
setback to a maximum of 4
stories or 48 feet
Page 452
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Provisions on the Proposed
Standards R-3 Requirements
Site Plan
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Perimeter Adjacent to a
Public Street (East 20 feet 25 feet (Met)
property line)
Perimeter Adjacent to a North: 15 feet (Met)
Property Line (North, South: 15 feet (Met)
15 feet
South, and West West: Setback varies along
property lines) Skunk Creek Wash (Met)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Adjacent to Street
20 feet 25 feet (Met)
(East)
Adjacent to Property North: 15 feet (Met)
Line (North, South, and South: 15 feet (Met)
5 feet
West) West: Setback varies along
Skunk Creek Wash (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% 7% (Met)
Minimum Amenities
2 amenities 7 amenities (Met)
Provided
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 56 garage spaces; 662
551 spaces surface spaces; 718 total
spaces (Met)
*Variance or Site Plan modification needed.
Page 453
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
REQUEST
1. This is a request to rezone a
31.97-gross acre site located at
the southwest corner of the
29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Subject
Trail alignments from PCD Site
NBCOD (Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District), approved C-2
or CP M-R PCD NBCOD
(Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park, Mid-Rise,
Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay
District) to C-2 NBCOD
(Intermediate Commercial, Zoning Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
North Black Canyon Overlay Development Department
District) to
remove the property from the North Gateway Planned Community District (PCD)
and allow multifamily residential development. The applicant intends to develop
354 detached and attached single-story units on the site.
NORTH GATEWAY PCD AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The North Gateway PCD was a City-initiated PCD established in 2001 via
Rezoning Case No. Z-34-01 with the intent that a master developer would
develop the infrastructure as stipulated in the case. The PCD is now considered
defunct since a master developer never installed the necessary infrastructure
and all the parcels are individually owned. In order for an individual property to
develop without the requirement of complying with the overarching PCD
infrastructure stipulations, the property must be removed from the PCD via the
rezoning process.
3. The North Gateway PCD approved a Mid-Rise overlay on this property as well
as other parcels within the North Gateway Village Core to promote high intensity
development. As recommended by staff, removal of the Mid-Rise overlay is
consistent with stipulated heights in the area and heights included with the
proposal.
Page 454
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
4. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the east portion of
the subject site is Mixed Use
(Commercial/ Commerce –
Business Park) and the west
portion is designated as
Preserves/ Floodplain. A
Commercial land use designation
accommodates multifamily
development at varying scales
and intensities.
Additionally, the boundaries of
General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Preserves/
Floodplain west of the site do not
presently align with the underlying
Flood Hazard (FH) zoning
boundary.
The area to the east of the site is General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of Phoenix
designated as Mixed Use Planning and Development Department
(Commercial/Commerce – Business Park). The areas to the north and south
are designated as both Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park)
and Preserves/Floodplain. The area to the west is designated as
Preserves/Floodplain.
The C-2 NBCOD zoning requested is consistent with the Mixed Use General
Plan Land Use Map designation and compatible with existing and future
envisioned land uses in the area.
The subject site is also within the North Gateway Village Core and further
discussed in Background Item No. 6.
SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING
5. The subject site is surrounded by vacant land. The property to the north of the
site is zoned C-2 M-R NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Mid Rise, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved by Rezoning Case No. Z-83-18-2. The
property to the east is zoned C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial, Height Waiver, Density Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) and subject to Rezoning Case No. Z-30-21-2 which proposed a
multifamily residential development. South of the site are vacant parcels zoned
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD). These properties are
currently going through the entitlement process to be removed from the North
Page 455
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Gateway PCD via Rezoning Case No. Z-66-21-2 and are planned to develop as
multifamily residential. The area to the west is zoned FH PCD NBCOD (Flood
Hazard and Erosion Management District, Planned Community District, North
Black Canyon Overlay District) and subject to Rezoning Case No. Z-29-02-2.
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CORE
6. The subject site is within the
North Gateway Village Core.
Phoenix City Council adopted
the North Gateway Village Core
Plan in 2008 to provide
guidance in creating a high
density, urban environment with
Skunk Creek Wash and Bronco
Butte as major natural
amenities.
The request to remove the
subject site from the North
Gateway PCD to allow for
multifamily development aligns
with the plan’s principles of
providing high density
residential uses around the
Paseo del Prado. The North
Gateway Village Core Plan North Gateway Core Map; Source: City of Phoenix
indicated that the site was Planning and Development North Gateway Village
envisioned to develop as Mixed Core Plan
Use, Residential/Retail, which
encourages unique residential opportunities. The rezoning request proposes a
multifamily residential development with numerous pedestrian connections
along the Paseo del Prado and Skunk Creek Wash to promote cohesive
pedestrian circulation while preserving the natural features in the area.
7. A Master Street Plan for the North Gateway PCD was never developed, thus the
corresponding street alignments and cross sections were not incorporated into
the Street Classification Map. Previous requests to remove properties from the
North Gateway PCD have included stipulations for street dedications and
improvements within the North Gateway Village Core.
Several property owners and stakeholders within the PCD have commenced a
traffic study for the North Gateway Village Core. CivTech, a consulting
engineering firm specializing in traffic engineering, is working to complete the
study and ensure accurate land use projections. The study is aimed at providing
Page 456
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
an analysis related to the overall capacity for the roadway network within the
Village Core. The study has not been completed at the time of this report,
however subsequent sections of this report outline the requirements from the
Street Transportation Department for this development.
NORTH BLACK CANYON CORRIDOR PLAN
8. The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The Phoenix
development within the plan area. The proposal is consistent with the intent of
the following goals from the plan:
• Goal 2: Achieve a balance between employment and housing.
The proposed development enhances the mixture of uses within the area
by locating housing units within close proximity to existing and future
employment opportunities. The site is also located within the North
Gateway Village Core, which is envisioned as a high-density, mixed use
urban environment.
• Goal 4: Preserve North Sonoran Desert amenities and use these features
to define community form and identity.
As depicted on the site plan, the developer intends to incorporate the
Paseo del Prado as a central feature of the site and provide access to
Skunk Creek Wash to the west. Both the Paseo del Prado and Skunk
Creek Wash are existing desert features that provide character and
identity to the Village.
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT
9. The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Overlay District (NBCOD).
The City Council adopted the NBCOD in 2001 in order to implement the designs
and concepts of the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The NBCOD ensures
development is compatible with the desert environment by providing
comprehensive design guidelines. The development will be consistent with the
NBCOD guidelines by developing buildings with a desert color palette, as
depiccted in the building elevations submitted by the applicant. Building design
is further discussed in Background Item No. 11.
The subject site is directly adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and, per the NBCOD,
the developer will allow the wash to serve multi-use functions. In addition to
drainage, the wash system will contain trails which function as a recreational
and visual amenity. The trail along Skunk Creek Wash will also tie into the
Paseo del Prado, enhancing to the proposed pedestrian corridor network
through the North Gateway Village Core.
Page 457
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
PROPOSAL
10. The conceptual site plan
proposes 354 detached
and attached one-story
multifamily units. These
units are composed of
126 one-bedroom units,
189 two-bedroom units,
and 39 three-bedroom
units.
There are two entry
points to the site from
29th Avenue, including a
gated main entrance on
the south side of the site
and a secondary gated
driveway on the north
side of the site. Both
entryways will provide
ingress and egress to
29th Avenue, once the
roadway is developed.
In regard to vehicular
parking, there are 56 Proposed Site Plan; Source: McGough and Adamson
garage spaces and 662
surface parking spaces.
The garage spaces also have attached storage spaces. Of the total number of
surface parking spaces, which are distributed equitably throughout the site, a
minimum of 360 spaces will be covered.
There are various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the site.
The proposed development contains a playground, pool, clubhouse, four open
space areas, and three minor amenities with pedestrian connections to the
Skunk Creek Wash trail. The trail along Skunk Creek Wash also connects to
the Paseo del Prado, which bisects the site. The Paseo will be accessible to
residents and the public, which supports the proposed vision of having a viable
pedestrian corridor through the North Gateway Village Core.
Staff does not recommend general conformance to the conceptual site plan
provided by the applicant as modifications to this plan may be required to
address street-related stipulations as outlined subsequently in this report.
However, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to limit the maximum number of
dwelling units to 354. Furthermore, Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3 address landscape
Page 458
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
setback enhancements along 29th Avenue and the western side of the site.
Lastly, staff recommends Stipulation No. 4 to require the distribution of open
space areas throughout the development, including along the Paseo Del Prado,
to promote pedestrian interaction between these areas.
11. The conceptual building
elevations depict three
residential building types, in
addition to the leasing office.
The front elevations include a
variety of exterior colors and
materials which include
masonry veneer and stucco.
Each building product creates
architectural interest with
decorative front doors, pop
outs, offsets, recesses,
variations in roof height, and
Residential Building Rendering – 1 Bedroom Duplex;
various window sizes. Source: Norris Design
All of the proposed buildings
will be kept at one story, under
20 feet in height per the
building elevations submitted
by the applicant. Staff is not
recommending general
conformance to the elevations
because the side and rear
elevations do not exhibit the
same design continuity as the
front elevations. Since the
development is within the North
Gateway Village Core and
some of the building elevations
will be oriented towads Skunk Residential Building Rendering – 2 Bedroom Detched
Creek Wash, the Paseo del Unit; Source: Norris Design
Prado, and 29th Avenue, staff
is recommending Stipulation
No. 5 to ensure that the
architectural features and/or
materials will be shown on all
sides of the buildings.
Page 459
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Staff is also recommending
Stipulation No. 6 to ensure
colors and materials are in
compliance with the NBCOD
and in keeping with other
planned development in the
Core.
Residential Building Rendering – 3 Bedroom
Depatched Unit; Source: Norris Design
12. The conceptual site plan depicts various pedestrian connections throughout the
development, including connections to the shared use path along Skunk Creek
Wash and to the Paseo del Prado. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 7 to
require a minimum of three pedestrian connections from the development to the
shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash. Additionally, staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 8 to ensure that the development will construct and dedicated
the Paseo del Prado within the designated alignment, plus provide
enhancements to this area such as shading. Staff is also recommending
Stipulation No. 9 to ensure that the development constructs a shared use path
within a public trail easement along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash.
Stipulation No. 10 requires that shading of pedestrian walkways be a minimum
of 75 percent to promote thermal comfort and walkability. Stipulation No. 11
requires that alternative paving material be utilized where pedestrian paths and
vehicular drives intersect to promote safety. Stipulation No. 12 requireds
pedestrian pathway be connected using the most direct route for pedestrians.
CITYWIDE STUDIES AND POLICIES
13. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on street frontages should be detached from
the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. To
contribute to future improvements of this site and the urban forest infrastructure,
staff is recommending that a minimum of 75 percent of the pedestrian pathways,
including the Paseo del Prado, be shaded by structures or landscaping, which is
addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
Page 460
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
14. 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. Staff recommends Stipulation
Nos. 13 and 14 to require detached sidewalks along adjacent public streets and
bicycle parking to promote various methods of transportation.
15. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
Bicycle lanes have been designated within Sonoran Desert Drive, south of the
subject site. Staff recommends bicycle parking be provided for both residents
and guests. Bicycle parking is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
16. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The
proposed development will provide up to 354 mulitfamily units of various sizes,
which supports the plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and contributes to a variety of housing types that will address the supply
shortage.
17. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
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. Per the applicant’s proposed
site plan, recycling facilities will be available on site.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
18. At the time the staff report was written, staff had not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
Page 461
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalks via the most
direct route. Additionally, the Department provided comments recommending
alternative paving materials or treatments where pedestrian pathways cross
drive aisles and a minimum 75 percent shade coverage along all pedestrian
paths and sidewalks at full maturity. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10
through 12.
20. The Street Transportation Department provided the following comments:
• The developer shall provide detached sidewalks with a landscape area
between the back of curb and back of sidewalk at a minimum of 10 feet in
width to meet the Street Classification Map requirements. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 13.
• The developer shall provide bicycle infrastructure for residents and
guests. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
• The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for the
development. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
• The developer shall provide the appropriate dedication and construction
of adjacent right-of-way. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 16 through
20 and 23.
• The development shall provide a pedestrian crossing and amenity area at
the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 21 and 22.
21. The Water Services Department commented that the closest water main is
within Sonoran Desert Drive and a water main extension will be required at
development. Additionally, the closest sewer main is within 26th Glen and a
sewer main extension will be required at development. The Department stated
that depending on the timing for the development, there may or may not be
downstream sewer capacity issues. The Department noted that capacity is a
dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety of factors and the
City is only able to provide assurance of water and sewer capacity at the time of
preliminary site plan approval.
22. The Floodplain Management Division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), as
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
division indicated that no encroachment is allowed in the floodway without
Page 462
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis showing no rise in water surface elevation and
increase in the SFHA boundaries.
23. The Fire Department had no comments regarding the case.
OTHER
24. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 24 through 26.
25. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal action such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The development is consistent with the Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park).
2. The C-2 NBCOD zoning districts will allow development that is consistent in
character with the vision of the North Gateway Village Core Plan and the North
Black Canyon Corridor Plan and Overlay District.
3. The proposed development furthers the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan by
increasing housing options for residents within close proximity to employment
options.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th
Avenue frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 463
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between
the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the west side
of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a
minimum of one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the Paseo
Del Prado, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date
stamped August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North Black
Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and blending
with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor
amenities and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk
Creek Wash shared use path along the western portion of the site, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and continue
through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for the
pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet shall
remain completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including benches.
The remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly uses, such as
benches, tables, courtyards, etc.
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for
the Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor seating,
and points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
Page 464
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-foot-
wide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash per
Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of
75 percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other
than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb, and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees
planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings along both
sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum of 34 inverted U-bicycle
parking stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for traffic signal funding
and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two
separate existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 465
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the
southwest corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25%
escrow contribution for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan
approval, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized
intersection of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement
shall be provided to APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized intersection.
Connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department prior to preliminary site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on the
east side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device for
a pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path,
as depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to fund a
raised median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to preliminary
site plan approval and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the
intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site plan
date stamped September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
Page 466
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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
Julianna Pierre
November 2, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual site plan date stamped November 2, 2021
Conceptual building elevations date stamped August 27, 2021 (4 pages)
Page 467
PCD*
Z-34-01
CP/GCP M-R
NBCOD *
Z-55-19
CP/GCP
C-2 M-R * (C-2,C-P, M-R
Z-83-18
M-R) PCD *
PCD
North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan Z-34-01
and Overlay District
BRONCO BUTTE TRL Z-43-99
RL
ET
U TT
C OB
FH BR
ON
PCD
§
¦
¨
17 S-1 NBCOD* C-2 M-R*
ANX 149 Z-29-02 Z-20-17
PCD *
Z-43-99
PUD *
Z-37-20 PCD* NORTH FOOTHILLS DR
29TH AVE
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-59-21
ID P
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 I-1 7
P Y R AM
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
FROM:
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) ( 31.97 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/8/2021
Z-59-21 REVISION DATES:
10/13/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
31.97 Acres QS 55-22 Q-7 TO: C-2 NBCOD ( 31.97 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) N/A ( 463 or use underlying zoning) N/A ( 556 or use underlying zoning)
C-2 NBCOD 463 556
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 468
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-59-21.mxd
PCD*
Z-34-01
CP/GCP M-R
NBCOD *
Z-55-19
CP/GCP
C-2 M-R * (C-2,C-P, M-R
Z-83-18
M-R) PCD *
PCD
North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan Z-34-01
and Overlay District
BRONCO BUTTE TRL Z-43-99
RL
ET
U TT
C OB
FH BR
ON
PCD
§
¨
¦
17 S-1 NBCOD* C-2 M-R*
ANX 149 Z-29-02 Z-20-17
PCD *
Z-43-99
PUD *
Z-37-20 PCD* NORTH FOOTHILLS DR
29TH AVE
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-59-21
ID P
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 I-1 7
P Y R AM
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
FROM:
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) ( 31.97 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/8/2021
Z-59-21 REVISION DATES:
10/13/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
31.97 Acres QS 55-22 Q-7 TO: C-2 NBCOD ( 31.97 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) N/A ( 463 or use underlying zoning) N/A ( 556 or use underlying zoning)
C-2 NBCOD 463 556
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 469
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-59-21.mxd
Page 470
Page 471
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 1 BEDROOM DUPLEX
08/19/2021
Page 472
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 2 BEDROOM DETACHED UNIT
08/19/2021
Page 473
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 3 BEDROOM DETACHED UNIT
08/19/2021
Page 474
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | LEASING OFFICE
08/19/2021
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2021
Request From PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved C-2 or C-P M-R PCD
NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park,
Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Request To C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Proposed Use PCD designation removal and allow multifamily
residential
Location Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail alignments
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that the proposal is to
rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) to C-2
NBCOD to remove the PCD zoning designation and allow multifamily residential. She
stated that the development is proposed to have 354 detached and attached one-story
multifamily units with various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the
site. She added that the site will incorporate the Paseo del Prado which will connect to
the Skunk Creek Wash trail. She stated that staff is not recommending general
conformance because modifications to the site plan may be required to address street
related stipulations.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development proposes three residential building types
with front elevations that include a variety of exterior colors and materials, including
masonry veneer and stucco. She added that the elevations included architectural
interest with decorative front doors, pop outs, variations in roof height, and various
window sizes. She stated that staff is not recommending general conformance because
the side and rear elevations do not exhibit the same design continuity as the front
elevations.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 475
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff finding and stipulations. She added that staff
recommended approval, subject to stipulations. She noted that staff had not received
any community correspondence.
Ron Harris, representative with Norris Design, stated that the rezoning request aligns
with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designation and will remove the PCD and
M-R designations. He added that the western side of rezoning boundary aligns with the
FH zoning boundary. He added that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which was
commenced by several property owners and stakeholders within the PCD, has been
submitted and is being reviewed by the Street Transportation Department. He also
reviewed the elevations and amenities that will be provided.
Chair Jason Stokes asked for clarification regarding the notification requirements.
Ron Harris stated that mailings were sent to the applicable surrounding properties as
well as ten neighborhood organizations. Committee member Michelle Ricart asked if
Sonoran Commons HOA was sent notification. Ron Harris confirmed that a notification
letter was sent to that specific HOA.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked if the applicant had spoken with the Deer
Valley School District. Ron Harris stated that notices were provided to the school
district. Committee member Michelle Ricart expressed concerns because the
applicant only sent out a mailer to the school district, but has not worked with them
directly.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon expressed concerns regarding the density and lack of
open space. She added that the appropriate infrastructure has not been established to
support the proposed number of units. She also expressed concerns with the
development not providing enough parking given the number of units.
Committee member Daniel Tome also expressed concerns regarding infrastructure.
He explained that there are various wet crossings in the Village and the issues
surrounding these crossings will only be exacerbated by the additional traffic from the
development.
Committee member Michelle Ricart stated that she received comments from
Committee member Julie Read, who could not be present at the meeting. The
comments stated that builders should build responsibly. She stated that the amenities
provided will attract families, so the developer should work with the school district. She
added that the development is in no way trying to benefit the North Gateway
community.
Ron Harris stated that a core stakeholder group of property owners is working mutually
on a master plan regarding infrastructure for this are of the North Gateway Core. He
added that the group has been working with Civil and the Street Transportation
Department. He stated that the project is proposing a lower density than what is
allowed in the C-2 zoning district. He added that the applicant would be happy to talk to
any school district representatives.
MOTION: Vice Chair Shannon Simon made a motion to deny Z-59-21-2. The motion
was seconded by Committee member Michelle Ricart.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 476
VOTE: 4-1 with Committee members Simon, Stokes, Ricart, and Tome in favor and
Committee member Tucker in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 477
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 2, 2021
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-59-21-2
Location: Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments
From: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
To: C-2 NBCOD
Acreage: 31.97
Proposal: Planned Community District removal and to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Representative: Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Gateway 11/4/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation, with an
additional stipulation, and remand the case back to the North Gateway Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-59-21-2, per the staff
recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into the record, and remand the case
back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee for reconsideration.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-2 (Bushing and Pierz)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The development is consistent with the Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park).
2. The C-2 NBCOD zoning districts will allow development that is consistent in character
with the vision of the North Gateway Village Core Plan and the North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan and Overlay District.
3. The proposed development furthers the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan by
increasing housing options for residents within close proximity to employment options.
Page 478
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th Avenue
frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between the
shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the west side of the
site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a minimum of
one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the Paseo Del Prado, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date stamped
August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North Black
Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and blending with,
rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert environment, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor amenities
and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk Creek Wash shared
use path along the western portion of the site, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and continue
through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for the
pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet shall remain
completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including benches. The
remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly uses, such as benches
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for the
Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination
of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor seating, and
points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-foot-wide
public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash per Section 429
of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 479
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of 75
percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other than those
used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be detached
with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back
of curb and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum of 34 inverted U-bicycle parking
stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or distributed throughout
the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City. The developer shall be responsible for traffic signal funding and/or escrow
contribution as determined by the approved Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two separate
existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as required
by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the southwest
corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25% escrow contribution
for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan approval, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized intersection
of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement shall be provided to
APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized intersection. Connection shall be
reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department prior to preliminary
site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on the east
side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device for a
pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as
Page 480
depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to fund a raised
median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to preliminary site plan
approval and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the intersection
of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site plan date stamped
September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. 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 481
Attachment E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-21-2
RECONSIDERATION
Date of VPC Meeting January 14, 2022
Request From PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved C-2 or C-P M-R PCD
NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park,
Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Request To C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Proposed Use PCD designation removal and allow multifamily
residential
Location Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail alignments
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 2-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that the proposal is to
rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) to C-2
NBCOD to remove the PCD zoning designation and allow multifamily residential. She
stated that the development is proposed to have 354 detached and attached one-story
multifamily units with various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the
site. She added that the site will incorporate the Paseo del Prado which will connect to
the Skunk Creek Wash trail.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development proposes three residential building types
with front elevations that include a variety of exterior colors and materials, including
masonry veneer and stucco. She added that the elevations included architectural
interest with decorative front doors, pop outs, variations in roof height, and various
window sizes.
Julianna Pierre stated that the item was heard by Planning Commission on December
2, 2021, where the item was approved per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation and remanded back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee (VPC)
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 482
for reconsideration. She noted that the additional stipulation was for the applicant to
submit a Proposition 207 Waiver of Claims prior to preliminary site plan approval.
Alan Beaudoin, representative with Norris Design, stated that he discussed the case
with Planning Commission members and Council Office and the site plan had been
updated based on comments provided. He stated that view fencing had been added
along the Paseo del Prado for an open feeling. He stated that the rezoning request
aligns with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designation and will remove the
PCD and M-R designations. He stated that a traffic study, master water plan, and
master wastewater plan were being completed to comprehensively plan infrastructure
for the entire Village Core.
Committee member Michelle Ricart expressed concerns because there were no
major changes to the application considering the VPC’s primary issue was with density.
Alan Beaudoin stated that the of all the rezoning cases brought before the Village, this
proposal was the lowest in density. He also noted that the proposed density is
permitted in the zoning district. Committee member Michelle Ricart stated that there
is also an issue with lot coverage and stressed that the proposal is not pleasing. She
also noted that one of the closest homeowner’s associations did not receive notification,
which may have been why there was no community input. She reiterated that she
wanted to see more changes to the application.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked how the applicant was working with the
school district. Alan Beaudoin stated that there have been conversations with the
school superintendent and there is a contribution agreement. Committee member
Julie Read expressed her appreciation regarding the contribution agreement.
Chair Jason Stokes stated that since the development is all one-story units, the
density is horizontal rather than vertically, as have been seen with other proposed
developments in the Core. He asked how high they could build with a density waiver.
Julianna Pierre stated that if the applicant were to rezone with a density waiver they
could build to the R-5 standards at 4 stories or 48 feet. Committee member Michelle
Ricart reiterated that the density and lot coverage are too high.
Alan Beaudoin stated that the development would have a strong and connected
pedestrian network. He added that by having the site remain single story would
maintain views west of the site.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked about the site’s amenities. Alan
Beaudoin stated that amenities would include, but are not limited to, a community pool,
dog run, car wash, various open spaces, walking paths, and recreational and event
facilities.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, asked if the development would be rental.
Alan Beaudoin stated that, yes, the development would be for rent. Bob Thompson
asked if there would be any funding contribution to Dove Valley Road. Alan Beaudoin
stated that a portion of the impact fees would go to infrastructure. Bob Thompson
asked if the development would be the same value as other developments in the area.
Chair Jason Stokes noted that this was beyond the purview of the VPC.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 483
MOTION: Committee member Michelle Ricart made a motion to approve Z-59-21-2.
The motion was seconded by Committee member Julie Read.
VOTE: 2-1 with Committee members Stokes and Read in favor and Committee member
Ricart in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 484
Report
Application Z-59-21-2 - Southwest Corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail Alignments (Ordinance G-6957)
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-59-21-2 and rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD
(approved Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park District, Mid-Rise, Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial District, North Black Canyon Overlay District) to remove the PCD
designation and allow multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
Proposed Zoning: C-2 NBCOD
Acreage: 31.97 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Applicant: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Representative: Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
4, 2021 and recommended denial by a vote of 4-1.
VPC Action: The North Gateway Village Planning Committee reconsidered this case
on Jan. 13, 2022 and recommended approval, by a vote of 2-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, with an additional stipulation,
and remanded the case back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee for
reconsideration by a vote of 7-2.
Location
Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments.
Page 439
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 440
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-59-21-2) FROM PCD NBCOD, APPROVED C-2 OR CP
M-R PCD NBCOD (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH
BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPROVED
INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCE PARK, MID-
RISE, PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT, NORTH BLACK
CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT) TO C-2 NBCOD
(INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, NORTH BLACK CANYON
OVERLAY DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 31.97-acre site located at the southwest
corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments in a portion of Section 14,
Township 5 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby
changed from “PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD” (Planned
Community District, North Black Canyon Overlay District, approved Intermediate
Commercial or Commerce Park, Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Page 441
Canyon Overlay District) to “C-2 NBCOD” (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th
Avenue frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet
between the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the
west side of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a
minimum of one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the
Paseo Del Prado, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date
stamped August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North
Black Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and
blending with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert
environment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor
amenities and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk
Creek Wash shared use path along the western portion of the site, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 442
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and
continue through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for
the pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet
shall remain completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including
benches. The remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly
uses, such as benches
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for
the Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor
seating, and points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-
foot-wide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash
per Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of
75 percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another
material, other than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings along
both sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 443
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the
bicycle parking stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for
traffic signal funding and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved
Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two
separate existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the
southwest corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25%
escrow contribution for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan
approval, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized
intersection of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement
shall be provided to APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized
intersection. Connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Street
Transportation Department prior to preliminary site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on
the east side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device
for a pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail
path, as depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to
fund a raised median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to
preliminary site plan approval and as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 444
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the
intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site
plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping, and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
Page 445
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 446
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-59-21-2:
A portion of land situated within the Southeast Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 North,
Range 2 East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, more
particularly described as follows:
COMMENCING at a found ½ inch rebar with cap RLS 21081 accepted as the center of
said Section 14 from which a 3-inch City of Phoenix brass cap flush accepted as the
South quarter corner thereof bears South 00°21’59” East, 2645.55 feet;
Thence North 89°32’56” East, 298.82 feet along the north line of the Southeast quarter
of said Section 14 to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence continuing along said north line, North 89°32'56" East, 1020.89 feet;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°22'06" East, 1323.84 feet along the east line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 14;
Thence leaving said east line, South 89°35'43" West, 955.65 feet along the south line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of section 14;
Thence leaving said south line, North 27°14'19" West, 112.72 feet;
Thence North 23°38'35" West, 162.73 feet;
Thence North 12°33'41" West, 85.94 feet;
Thence North 10°17'39" West, 260.38 feet;
Thence North 00°00'00" West, 74.56 feet;
Thence North 26°10'19" East, 138.87 feet;
Thence North 22°17'03" East, 110.76 feet;
Thence North 01°31'03" West, 177.09 feet;
Thence North 02°41'57" West, 104.14 feet;
Thence North 02°41'55" West, 10.10 feet;
Thence North 06°07'50" East, 131.19 feet;
Thence North 06°32'08" East, 9.98 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 447
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 1,403,867 sq. ft. (32.2284
acres) more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of
record or otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions.
Page 448
Page 449
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
North Gateway Village Planning November 4, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
Request From: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD
NBCOD) (31.97 acres)
Request To: C-2 NBCOD (31.97 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Community District removal and to
allow multifamily residential
Location: Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and
Bronco Butte Trail alignments
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Applicant Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Representative Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Primary Village Core, Mixed Use
General Plan Land Use Map Designation (Commercial/Commerce – Business
Park), Preserves/Floodplain
Not classified
29th Avenue Not dedicated
(Pending study)
Street Map
Classification
Not classified
Bronco Butte Trail Not dedicated
(Pending study)
Page 450
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; CORES, CENTERS & CORRIDORS;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Plan cores, centers and corridors to include a variety of
land uses: office, retail shopping, entertainment and cultural, housing, hotel and
resort, and where appropriate, some types of industry.
The proposal includes 354 single-story detached and attached units within the North
Gateway Village Core. The proposal will provide additional housing opportunities in the
Village within close proximity to and expanding W. L. Gore Campus and the proposed
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company site.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: DESIGN: Promote
neighborhood identity through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping
and character of the area. Each new development should contribute to the
character identified for the village.
The proposed development will comply with principles outlined in the North Gateway
Core Plan, North Black Canyon Corridor Plan, and North Black Canyon Overlay District.
The site will not only maintain the desert character, but also promote walkability and
connectivity through the Village Core by having pedestrian walkways along the Paseo
del Prado and Skunk Creek Wash.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
As stipulated, the site will provide shaded pedestrian paths. The enhanced shading will
create vibrant pedestrian spaces and reduce the urban heat island effect.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
North Gateway Village Core Plan: See Background Item Nos. 6 and 7.
North Black Canyon Corridor Plan: See Background Item No. 8.
North Black Canyon Overlay District: See Background Item No. 9.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 13.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 14.
Page 451
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 15.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 16.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 17.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R
On Site Vacant
PCD NBCOD)
North Vacant C-2 M-R NBCOD
West Skunk Creek Wash FH PCD NBCOD
Vacant (proposed
East C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD
multifamily residential)
South PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R
Vacant
PCD NBCOD)
C-2 NBCOD
(Utilizing R-3 Development Standards – Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the Proposed
Standards R-3 Requirements
Site Plan
Gross Acreage - 31.97 acres
Maximum Total
487; 556 with bonus 354 units (Met)
Number of Units
Maximum Density
15.23; 17.40 with bonus 11.07 (Met)
(dwelling unit/acre)
Maximum Lot
45% 25% (Met)
Coverage
Maximum Building 2 stories or 30 feet for first
Height 150 feet; building height may
be increased by 1 foot for
1 story and 20 feet (Met)
every 5 feet of increased
setback to a maximum of 4
stories or 48 feet
Page 452
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Provisions on the Proposed
Standards R-3 Requirements
Site Plan
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Perimeter Adjacent to a
Public Street (East 20 feet 25 feet (Met)
property line)
Perimeter Adjacent to a North: 15 feet (Met)
Property Line (North, South: 15 feet (Met)
15 feet
South, and West West: Setback varies along
property lines) Skunk Creek Wash (Met)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND OPEN SPACE STANDARDS
Adjacent to Street
20 feet 25 feet (Met)
(East)
Adjacent to Property North: 15 feet (Met)
Line (North, South, and South: 15 feet (Met)
5 feet
West) West: Setback varies along
Skunk Creek Wash (Met)
Minimum Open Space 5% 7% (Met)
Minimum Amenities
2 amenities 7 amenities (Met)
Provided
MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Parking 56 garage spaces; 662
551 spaces surface spaces; 718 total
spaces (Met)
*Variance or Site Plan modification needed.
Page 453
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
REQUEST
1. This is a request to rezone a
31.97-gross acre site located at
the southwest corner of the
29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Subject
Trail alignments from PCD Site
NBCOD (Planned Community
District, North Black Canyon
Overlay District), approved C-2
or CP M-R PCD NBCOD
(Intermediate Commercial or
Commerce Park, Mid-Rise,
Planned Community District,
North Black Canyon Overlay
District) to C-2 NBCOD
(Intermediate Commercial, Zoning Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
North Black Canyon Overlay Development Department
District) to
remove the property from the North Gateway Planned Community District (PCD)
and allow multifamily residential development. The applicant intends to develop
354 detached and attached single-story units on the site.
NORTH GATEWAY PCD AND GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The North Gateway PCD was a City-initiated PCD established in 2001 via
Rezoning Case No. Z-34-01 with the intent that a master developer would
develop the infrastructure as stipulated in the case. The PCD is now considered
defunct since a master developer never installed the necessary infrastructure
and all the parcels are individually owned. In order for an individual property to
develop without the requirement of complying with the overarching PCD
infrastructure stipulations, the property must be removed from the PCD via the
rezoning process.
3. The North Gateway PCD approved a Mid-Rise overlay on this property as well
as other parcels within the North Gateway Village Core to promote high intensity
development. As recommended by staff, removal of the Mid-Rise overlay is
consistent with stipulated heights in the area and heights included with the
proposal.
Page 454
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
4. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the east portion of
the subject site is Mixed Use
(Commercial/ Commerce –
Business Park) and the west
portion is designated as
Preserves/ Floodplain. A
Commercial land use designation
accommodates multifamily
development at varying scales
and intensities.
Additionally, the boundaries of
General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Preserves/
Floodplain west of the site do not
presently align with the underlying
Flood Hazard (FH) zoning
boundary.
The area to the east of the site is General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of Phoenix
designated as Mixed Use Planning and Development Department
(Commercial/Commerce – Business Park). The areas to the north and south
are designated as both Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park)
and Preserves/Floodplain. The area to the west is designated as
Preserves/Floodplain.
The C-2 NBCOD zoning requested is consistent with the Mixed Use General
Plan Land Use Map designation and compatible with existing and future
envisioned land uses in the area.
The subject site is also within the North Gateway Village Core and further
discussed in Background Item No. 6.
SURROUNDING USES AND ZONING
5. The subject site is surrounded by vacant land. The property to the north of the
site is zoned C-2 M-R NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, Mid Rise, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved by Rezoning Case No. Z-83-18-2. The
property to the east is zoned C-2 HGT/WVR DNS/WVR NBCOD (Intermediate
Commercial, Height Waiver, Density Waiver, North Black Canyon Overlay
District) and subject to Rezoning Case No. Z-30-21-2 which proposed a
multifamily residential development. South of the site are vacant parcels zoned
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD). These properties are
currently going through the entitlement process to be removed from the North
Page 455
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Gateway PCD via Rezoning Case No. Z-66-21-2 and are planned to develop as
multifamily residential. The area to the west is zoned FH PCD NBCOD (Flood
Hazard and Erosion Management District, Planned Community District, North
Black Canyon Overlay District) and subject to Rezoning Case No. Z-29-02-2.
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CORE
6. The subject site is within the
North Gateway Village Core.
Phoenix City Council adopted
the North Gateway Village Core
Plan in 2008 to provide
guidance in creating a high
density, urban environment with
Skunk Creek Wash and Bronco
Butte as major natural
amenities.
The request to remove the
subject site from the North
Gateway PCD to allow for
multifamily development aligns
with the plan’s principles of
providing high density
residential uses around the
Paseo del Prado. The North
Gateway Village Core Plan North Gateway Core Map; Source: City of Phoenix
indicated that the site was Planning and Development North Gateway Village
envisioned to develop as Mixed Core Plan
Use, Residential/Retail, which
encourages unique residential opportunities. The rezoning request proposes a
multifamily residential development with numerous pedestrian connections
along the Paseo del Prado and Skunk Creek Wash to promote cohesive
pedestrian circulation while preserving the natural features in the area.
7. A Master Street Plan for the North Gateway PCD was never developed, thus the
corresponding street alignments and cross sections were not incorporated into
the Street Classification Map. Previous requests to remove properties from the
North Gateway PCD have included stipulations for street dedications and
improvements within the North Gateway Village Core.
Several property owners and stakeholders within the PCD have commenced a
traffic study for the North Gateway Village Core. CivTech, a consulting
engineering firm specializing in traffic engineering, is working to complete the
study and ensure accurate land use projections. The study is aimed at providing
Page 456
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
an analysis related to the overall capacity for the roadway network within the
Village Core. The study has not been completed at the time of this report,
however subsequent sections of this report outline the requirements from the
Street Transportation Department for this development.
NORTH BLACK CANYON CORRIDOR PLAN
8. The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The Phoenix
development within the plan area. The proposal is consistent with the intent of
the following goals from the plan:
• Goal 2: Achieve a balance between employment and housing.
The proposed development enhances the mixture of uses within the area
by locating housing units within close proximity to existing and future
employment opportunities. The site is also located within the North
Gateway Village Core, which is envisioned as a high-density, mixed use
urban environment.
• Goal 4: Preserve North Sonoran Desert amenities and use these features
to define community form and identity.
As depicted on the site plan, the developer intends to incorporate the
Paseo del Prado as a central feature of the site and provide access to
Skunk Creek Wash to the west. Both the Paseo del Prado and Skunk
Creek Wash are existing desert features that provide character and
identity to the Village.
NORTH BLACK CANYON OVERLAY DISTRICT
9. The subject site is within the North Black Canyon Overlay District (NBCOD).
The City Council adopted the NBCOD in 2001 in order to implement the designs
and concepts of the North Black Canyon Corridor Plan. The NBCOD ensures
development is compatible with the desert environment by providing
comprehensive design guidelines. The development will be consistent with the
NBCOD guidelines by developing buildings with a desert color palette, as
depiccted in the building elevations submitted by the applicant. Building design
is further discussed in Background Item No. 11.
The subject site is directly adjacent to Skunk Creek Wash and, per the NBCOD,
the developer will allow the wash to serve multi-use functions. In addition to
drainage, the wash system will contain trails which function as a recreational
and visual amenity. The trail along Skunk Creek Wash will also tie into the
Paseo del Prado, enhancing to the proposed pedestrian corridor network
through the North Gateway Village Core.
Page 457
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
PROPOSAL
10. The conceptual site plan
proposes 354 detached
and attached one-story
multifamily units. These
units are composed of
126 one-bedroom units,
189 two-bedroom units,
and 39 three-bedroom
units.
There are two entry
points to the site from
29th Avenue, including a
gated main entrance on
the south side of the site
and a secondary gated
driveway on the north
side of the site. Both
entryways will provide
ingress and egress to
29th Avenue, once the
roadway is developed.
In regard to vehicular
parking, there are 56 Proposed Site Plan; Source: McGough and Adamson
garage spaces and 662
surface parking spaces.
The garage spaces also have attached storage spaces. Of the total number of
surface parking spaces, which are distributed equitably throughout the site, a
minimum of 360 spaces will be covered.
There are various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the site.
The proposed development contains a playground, pool, clubhouse, four open
space areas, and three minor amenities with pedestrian connections to the
Skunk Creek Wash trail. The trail along Skunk Creek Wash also connects to
the Paseo del Prado, which bisects the site. The Paseo will be accessible to
residents and the public, which supports the proposed vision of having a viable
pedestrian corridor through the North Gateway Village Core.
Staff does not recommend general conformance to the conceptual site plan
provided by the applicant as modifications to this plan may be required to
address street-related stipulations as outlined subsequently in this report.
However, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 to limit the maximum number of
dwelling units to 354. Furthermore, Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3 address landscape
Page 458
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
setback enhancements along 29th Avenue and the western side of the site.
Lastly, staff recommends Stipulation No. 4 to require the distribution of open
space areas throughout the development, including along the Paseo Del Prado,
to promote pedestrian interaction between these areas.
11. The conceptual building
elevations depict three
residential building types, in
addition to the leasing office.
The front elevations include a
variety of exterior colors and
materials which include
masonry veneer and stucco.
Each building product creates
architectural interest with
decorative front doors, pop
outs, offsets, recesses,
variations in roof height, and
Residential Building Rendering – 1 Bedroom Duplex;
various window sizes. Source: Norris Design
All of the proposed buildings
will be kept at one story, under
20 feet in height per the
building elevations submitted
by the applicant. Staff is not
recommending general
conformance to the elevations
because the side and rear
elevations do not exhibit the
same design continuity as the
front elevations. Since the
development is within the North
Gateway Village Core and
some of the building elevations
will be oriented towads Skunk Residential Building Rendering – 2 Bedroom Detched
Creek Wash, the Paseo del Unit; Source: Norris Design
Prado, and 29th Avenue, staff
is recommending Stipulation
No. 5 to ensure that the
architectural features and/or
materials will be shown on all
sides of the buildings.
Page 459
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
Staff is also recommending
Stipulation No. 6 to ensure
colors and materials are in
compliance with the NBCOD
and in keeping with other
planned development in the
Core.
Residential Building Rendering – 3 Bedroom
Depatched Unit; Source: Norris Design
12. The conceptual site plan depicts various pedestrian connections throughout the
development, including connections to the shared use path along Skunk Creek
Wash and to the Paseo del Prado. Staff recommends Stipulation No. 7 to
require a minimum of three pedestrian connections from the development to the
shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash. Additionally, staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 8 to ensure that the development will construct and dedicated
the Paseo del Prado within the designated alignment, plus provide
enhancements to this area such as shading. Staff is also recommending
Stipulation No. 9 to ensure that the development constructs a shared use path
within a public trail easement along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash.
Stipulation No. 10 requires that shading of pedestrian walkways be a minimum
of 75 percent to promote thermal comfort and walkability. Stipulation No. 11
requires that alternative paving material be utilized where pedestrian paths and
vehicular drives intersect to promote safety. Stipulation No. 12 requireds
pedestrian pathway be connected using the most direct route for pedestrians.
CITYWIDE STUDIES AND POLICIES
13. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on street frontages should be detached from
the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. To
contribute to future improvements of this site and the urban forest infrastructure,
staff is recommending that a minimum of 75 percent of the pedestrian pathways,
including the Paseo del Prado, be shaded by structures or landscaping, which is
addressed in Stipulation No. 10.
Page 460
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
14. 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. Staff recommends Stipulation
Nos. 13 and 14 to require detached sidewalks along adjacent public streets and
bicycle parking to promote various methods of transportation.
15. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure.
Bicycle lanes have been designated within Sonoran Desert Drive, south of the
subject site. Staff recommends bicycle parking be provided for both residents
and guests. Bicycle parking is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
16. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The
proposed development will provide up to 354 mulitfamily units of various sizes,
which supports the plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and contributes to a variety of housing types that will address the supply
shortage.
17. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a
goal to become a zero waste city, as part of the City’s overall 2050
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
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. Per the applicant’s proposed
site plan, recycling facilities will be available on site.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
18. At the time the staff report was written, staff had not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
Page 461
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
19. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalks via the most
direct route. Additionally, the Department provided comments recommending
alternative paving materials or treatments where pedestrian pathways cross
drive aisles and a minimum 75 percent shade coverage along all pedestrian
paths and sidewalks at full maturity. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10
through 12.
20. The Street Transportation Department provided the following comments:
• The developer shall provide detached sidewalks with a landscape area
between the back of curb and back of sidewalk at a minimum of 10 feet in
width to meet the Street Classification Map requirements. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 13.
• The developer shall provide bicycle infrastructure for residents and
guests. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
• The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for the
development. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
• The developer shall provide the appropriate dedication and construction
of adjacent right-of-way. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 16 through
20 and 23.
• The development shall provide a pedestrian crossing and amenity area at
the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path. This is
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 21 and 22.
21. The Water Services Department commented that the closest water main is
within Sonoran Desert Drive and a water main extension will be required at
development. Additionally, the closest sewer main is within 26th Glen and a
sewer main extension will be required at development. The Department stated
that depending on the timing for the development, there may or may not be
downstream sewer capacity issues. The Department noted that capacity is a
dynamic condition that can change over time due to a variety of factors and the
City is only able to provide assurance of water and sewer capacity at the time of
preliminary site plan approval.
22. The Floodplain Management Division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), as
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
division indicated that no encroachment is allowed in the floodway without
Page 462
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
hydrologic and hydraulic analysis showing no rise in water surface elevation and
increase in the SFHA boundaries.
23. The Fire Department had no comments regarding the case.
OTHER
24. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 24 through 26.
25. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal action such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The development is consistent with the Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park).
2. The C-2 NBCOD zoning districts will allow development that is consistent in
character with the vision of the North Gateway Village Core Plan and the North
Black Canyon Corridor Plan and Overlay District.
3. The proposed development furthers the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan by
increasing housing options for residents within close proximity to employment
options.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th
Avenue frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 463
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between
the shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the west side
of the site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a
minimum of one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the Paseo
Del Prado, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date
stamped August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North Black
Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and blending
with, rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert environment, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor
amenities and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk
Creek Wash shared use path along the western portion of the site, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and continue
through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for the
pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet shall
remain completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including benches.
The remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly uses, such as
benches, tables, courtyards, etc.
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for
the Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a
combination of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor seating,
and points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
Page 464
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-foot-
wide public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash per
Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of
75 percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be constructed
of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other
than those used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be
detached with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb, and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees
planted a minimum of 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings along both
sides of the sidewalk, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the City
of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum of 34 inverted U-bicycle
parking stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or
distributed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development.
No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. The developer shall be responsible for traffic signal funding
and/or escrow contribution as determined by the approved Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two
separate existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.
Page 465
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as
required by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the
southwest corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25%
escrow contribution for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan
approval, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized
intersection of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement
shall be provided to APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized intersection.
Connection shall be reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department prior to preliminary site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on the
east side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device for
a pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path,
as depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to fund a
raised median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to preliminary
site plan approval and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the
intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site plan
date stamped September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping, and other incidentals as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
Page 466
Staff Report: Z-59-21-2
November 2, 2021
archaeologist, determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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
Julianna Pierre
November 2, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual site plan date stamped November 2, 2021
Conceptual building elevations date stamped August 27, 2021 (4 pages)
Page 467
PCD*
Z-34-01
CP/GCP M-R
NBCOD *
Z-55-19
CP/GCP
C-2 M-R * (C-2,C-P, M-R
Z-83-18
M-R) PCD *
PCD
North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan Z-34-01
and Overlay District
BRONCO BUTTE TRL Z-43-99
RL
ET
U TT
C OB
FH BR
ON
PCD
§
¦
¨
17 S-1 NBCOD* C-2 M-R*
ANX 149 Z-29-02 Z-20-17
PCD *
Z-43-99
PUD *
Z-37-20 PCD* NORTH FOOTHILLS DR
29TH AVE
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-59-21
ID P
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 I-1 7
P Y R AM
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
FROM:
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) ( 31.97 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/8/2021
Z-59-21 REVISION DATES:
10/13/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
31.97 Acres QS 55-22 Q-7 TO: C-2 NBCOD ( 31.97 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) N/A ( 463 or use underlying zoning) N/A ( 556 or use underlying zoning)
C-2 NBCOD 463 556
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 468
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-59-21.mxd
PCD*
Z-34-01
CP/GCP M-R
NBCOD *
Z-55-19
CP/GCP
C-2 M-R * (C-2,C-P, M-R
Z-83-18
M-R) PCD *
PCD
North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan Z-34-01
and Overlay District
BRONCO BUTTE TRL Z-43-99
RL
ET
U TT
C OB
FH BR
ON
PCD
§
¨
¦
17 S-1 NBCOD* C-2 M-R*
ANX 149 Z-29-02 Z-20-17
PCD *
Z-43-99
PUD *
Z-37-20 PCD* NORTH FOOTHILLS DR
29TH AVE
Z-34-01
PCD*
Z-34-01
w
v
303 SONORAN DESERT DR
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-59-21
ID P
0.1 0.05 0 0.1 I-1 7
P Y R AM
NORTH GATEWAY VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
FROM:
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) ( 31.97 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
9/8/2021
Z-59-21 REVISION DATES:
10/13/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
31.97 Acres QS 55-22 Q-7 TO: C-2 NBCOD ( 31.97 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) N/A ( 463 or use underlying zoning) N/A ( 556 or use underlying zoning)
C-2 NBCOD 463 556
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 469
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-59-21.mxd
Page 470
Page 471
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 1 BEDROOM DUPLEX
08/19/2021
Page 472
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 2 BEDROOM DETACHED UNIT
08/19/2021
Page 473
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | 3 BEDROOM DETACHED UNIT
08/19/2021
Page 474
VILLAGE AT BRONCO TRAIL | LEASING OFFICE
08/19/2021
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-21-2
Date of VPC Meeting November 4, 2021
Request From PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved C-2 or C-P M-R PCD
NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park,
Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Request To C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Proposed Use PCD designation removal and allow multifamily
residential
Location Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail alignments
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 4-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that the proposal is to
rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) to C-2
NBCOD to remove the PCD zoning designation and allow multifamily residential. She
stated that the development is proposed to have 354 detached and attached one-story
multifamily units with various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the
site. She added that the site will incorporate the Paseo del Prado which will connect to
the Skunk Creek Wash trail. She stated that staff is not recommending general
conformance because modifications to the site plan may be required to address street
related stipulations.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development proposes three residential building types
with front elevations that include a variety of exterior colors and materials, including
masonry veneer and stucco. She added that the elevations included architectural
interest with decorative front doors, pop outs, variations in roof height, and various
window sizes. She stated that staff is not recommending general conformance because
the side and rear elevations do not exhibit the same design continuity as the front
elevations.
200 West Washington Street, 3 rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 475
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff finding and stipulations. She added that staff
recommended approval, subject to stipulations. She noted that staff had not received
any community correspondence.
Ron Harris, representative with Norris Design, stated that the rezoning request aligns
with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designation and will remove the PCD and
M-R designations. He added that the western side of rezoning boundary aligns with the
FH zoning boundary. He added that the Traffic Impact Study (TIS), which was
commenced by several property owners and stakeholders within the PCD, has been
submitted and is being reviewed by the Street Transportation Department. He also
reviewed the elevations and amenities that will be provided.
Chair Jason Stokes asked for clarification regarding the notification requirements.
Ron Harris stated that mailings were sent to the applicable surrounding properties as
well as ten neighborhood organizations. Committee member Michelle Ricart asked if
Sonoran Commons HOA was sent notification. Ron Harris confirmed that a notification
letter was sent to that specific HOA.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked if the applicant had spoken with the Deer
Valley School District. Ron Harris stated that notices were provided to the school
district. Committee member Michelle Ricart expressed concerns because the
applicant only sent out a mailer to the school district, but has not worked with them
directly.
Vice Chair Shannon Simon expressed concerns regarding the density and lack of
open space. She added that the appropriate infrastructure has not been established to
support the proposed number of units. She also expressed concerns with the
development not providing enough parking given the number of units.
Committee member Daniel Tome also expressed concerns regarding infrastructure.
He explained that there are various wet crossings in the Village and the issues
surrounding these crossings will only be exacerbated by the additional traffic from the
development.
Committee member Michelle Ricart stated that she received comments from
Committee member Julie Read, who could not be present at the meeting. The
comments stated that builders should build responsibly. She stated that the amenities
provided will attract families, so the developer should work with the school district. She
added that the development is in no way trying to benefit the North Gateway
community.
Ron Harris stated that a core stakeholder group of property owners is working mutually
on a master plan regarding infrastructure for this are of the North Gateway Core. He
added that the group has been working with Civil and the Street Transportation
Department. He stated that the project is proposing a lower density than what is
allowed in the C-2 zoning district. He added that the applicant would be happy to talk to
any school district representatives.
MOTION: Vice Chair Shannon Simon made a motion to deny Z-59-21-2. The motion
was seconded by Committee member Michelle Ricart.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 476
VOTE: 4-1 with Committee members Simon, Stokes, Ricart, and Tome in favor and
Committee member Tucker in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 477
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 2, 2021
ITEM NO: 12
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-59-21-2
Location: Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail alignments
From: PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD)
To: C-2 NBCOD
Acreage: 31.97
Proposal: Planned Community District removal and to allow multifamily residential
Applicant: Alan Beaudoin, Norris Design
Owner: David McHenry & Mary Jane Trust
Representative: Shelby Duplessis, EMC Management, LLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
North Gateway 11/4/2021 Denial. Vote: 4-1.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff recommendation, with an
additional stipulation, and remand the case back to the North Gateway Village Planning
Committee for reconsideration.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Howard made a MOTION to approve Z-59-21-2, per the staff
recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into the record, and remand the case
back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee for reconsideration.
Maker: Howard
Second: Johnson
Vote: 7-2 (Bushing and Pierz)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The development is consistent with the Phoenix General Plan Land Use Map
designation of Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce – Business Park).
2. The C-2 NBCOD zoning districts will allow development that is consistent in character
with the vision of the North Gateway Village Core Plan and the North Black Canyon
Corridor Plan and Overlay District.
3. The proposed development furthers the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan by
increasing housing options for residents within close proximity to employment options.
Page 478
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be limited to a maximum of 354 dwelling units.
2. A minimum 25-foot-wide landscape setback shall be provided along the 29th Avenue
frontage, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The development shall provide a minimum landscape setback of 10 feet between the
shared use path along Skunk Creek Wash and any fencing on the west side of the
site, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
4. Open space areas shall be distributed throughout the development, with a minimum of
one central amenity area provided within close proximity to the Paseo Del Prado, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The architectural features and/or materials shown on the front elevation date stamped
August 27, 2021 shall be applied to all sides of the building, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All buildings, wall colors and materials shall be in compliance with the North Black
Canyon Overlay District with specific regard to colors being muted and blending with,
rather than contrasting strongly, the surrounding desert environment, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
7. The development shall provide a minimum of 3 access points, with minor amenities
and shaded to a minimum of 75 percent, connecting to the Skunk Creek Wash shared
use path along the western portion of the site, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
8. The east-west pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado) shall be provided in
accordance with the North Gateway Core Plan, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. The Paseo del Prado shall align with any existing easements and continue
through the entirety of the site from east to west.
b. A public pedestrian access easement of 20 feet shall be dedicated for the
pedestrian connection (Paseo del Prado). Of the 20 feet, 12 feet shall remain
completely free of any pedestrian impediments, including benches. The
remaining 8 feet may be used for pedestrian friendly uses, such as benches
c. A minimum of 75 percent of the 20-foot pedestrian access easement for the
Paseo del Prado shall be shaded by a structure, landscaping, or a combination
of the two.
d. The site shall be designed in such a manner that the building placement
creates an alignment and synergy for the Paseo del Prado. This can be
achieved by placing uses such as outdoor amenity areas, outdoor seating, and
points of architectural interest along the pedestrian path.
9. A minimum 10-foot shared use path (SUP) shall be constructed within a 25-foot-wide
public trail easement (PTE) along the east side of Skunk Creek Wash per Section 429
of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 479
10. Pedestrian pathways, including public sidewalks, shall be shaded a minimum of 75
percent by a structural and/or vegetative shade, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
11. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, the pathway shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or another material, other than those
used to pave parking surfaces and drive aisles, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
12. Pedestrian pathways shall connect building entrances, public sidewalks, and
community amenities, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
13. A minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk shall be provided along all streets and be detached
with a minimum 10-foot-wide landscaped strip located between the sidewalk and back
of curb and shall include minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings along both sides of the sidewalk, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The developer shall provide secured bicycle parking per Section 1307 of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. In addition, a minimum of 34 inverted U-bicycle parking
stalls shall be provided for guests located near the clubhouse or distributed throughout
the site and installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H of the Zoning Ordinance,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
15. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City. The developer shall be responsible for traffic signal funding and/or escrow
contribution as determined by the approved Traffic Impact Study.
16. The developer shall dedicate and construct right-of-way to connect to two separate
existing public street, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
17. The developer shall dedicate and construct the west half of 29th Avenue, as required
by the Traffic Impact Study and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
18. The developer shall provide traffic signal conduit and junction boxes at the southwest
corner of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail and deposit a 25% escrow contribution
for the future traffic signal prior to preliminary site plan approval, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
19. The developer shall provide site access to the future identified signalized intersection
of 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte Trail. A cross access easement shall be provided to
APN 204-11-002E for joint use of the signalized intersection. Connection shall be
reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation Department prior to preliminary
site plan approval.
20. All access control placement and spacing shall be in compliance with the Street
Planning and Design Guidelines and shall coordinate to align with access on the east
side of 29th Avenue, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
21. The developer shall provide $50,000 in escrow to fund a traffic control device for a
pedestrian crossing at the intersection of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as
Page 480
depicted on the site plan date stamped September 14, 2021, and to fund a raised
median island for pedestrian refuge along 29th Avenue, prior to preliminary site plan
approval and as approved by the Street Transportation Department.
22. The developer shall provide a shaded amenity area for pedestrians at the intersection
of 29th Avenue and the paseo trail path, as depicted on the site plan date stamped
September 14, 2021, and as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
23. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping,
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
24. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeology 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.
25. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determine such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
26. 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.
27. 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 481
Attachment E
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-59-21-2
RECONSIDERATION
Date of VPC Meeting January 14, 2022
Request From PCD NBCOD (Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District), approved C-2 or C-P M-R PCD
NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial or Commerce Park,
Mid-Rise, Planned Community District, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Request To C-2 NBCOD (Intermediate Commercial, North Black
Canyon Overlay District)
Proposed Use PCD designation removal and allow multifamily
residential
Location Southwest corner of the 29th Avenue and Bronco Butte
Trail alignments
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 2-1
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that the proposal is to
rezone the site from PCD NBCOD (Approved C-2 or CP M-R PCD NBCOD) to C-2
NBCOD to remove the PCD zoning designation and allow multifamily residential. She
stated that the development is proposed to have 354 detached and attached one-story
multifamily units with various open space and amenity areas dispersed throughout the
site. She added that the site will incorporate the Paseo del Prado which will connect to
the Skunk Creek Wash trail.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development proposes three residential building types
with front elevations that include a variety of exterior colors and materials, including
masonry veneer and stucco. She added that the elevations included architectural
interest with decorative front doors, pop outs, variations in roof height, and various
window sizes.
Julianna Pierre stated that the item was heard by Planning Commission on December
2, 2021, where the item was approved per the staff recommendation with an additional
stipulation and remanded back to the North Gateway Village Planning Committee (VPC)
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 482
for reconsideration. She noted that the additional stipulation was for the applicant to
submit a Proposition 207 Waiver of Claims prior to preliminary site plan approval.
Alan Beaudoin, representative with Norris Design, stated that he discussed the case
with Planning Commission members and Council Office and the site plan had been
updated based on comments provided. He stated that view fencing had been added
along the Paseo del Prado for an open feeling. He stated that the rezoning request
aligns with the existing General Plan Land Use Map designation and will remove the
PCD and M-R designations. He stated that a traffic study, master water plan, and
master wastewater plan were being completed to comprehensively plan infrastructure
for the entire Village Core.
Committee member Michelle Ricart expressed concerns because there were no
major changes to the application considering the VPC’s primary issue was with density.
Alan Beaudoin stated that the of all the rezoning cases brought before the Village, this
proposal was the lowest in density. He also noted that the proposed density is
permitted in the zoning district. Committee member Michelle Ricart stated that there
is also an issue with lot coverage and stressed that the proposal is not pleasing. She
also noted that one of the closest homeowner’s associations did not receive notification,
which may have been why there was no community input. She reiterated that she
wanted to see more changes to the application.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked how the applicant was working with the
school district. Alan Beaudoin stated that there have been conversations with the
school superintendent and there is a contribution agreement. Committee member
Julie Read expressed her appreciation regarding the contribution agreement.
Chair Jason Stokes stated that since the development is all one-story units, the
density is horizontal rather than vertically, as have been seen with other proposed
developments in the Core. He asked how high they could build with a density waiver.
Julianna Pierre stated that if the applicant were to rezone with a density waiver they
could build to the R-5 standards at 4 stories or 48 feet. Committee member Michelle
Ricart reiterated that the density and lot coverage are too high.
Alan Beaudoin stated that the development would have a strong and connected
pedestrian network. He added that by having the site remain single story would
maintain views west of the site.
Committee member Michelle Ricart asked about the site’s amenities. Alan
Beaudoin stated that amenities would include, but are not limited to, a community pool,
dog run, car wash, various open spaces, walking paths, and recreational and event
facilities.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, asked if the development would be rental.
Alan Beaudoin stated that, yes, the development would be for rent. Bob Thompson
asked if there would be any funding contribution to Dove Valley Road. Alan Beaudoin
stated that a portion of the impact fees would go to infrastructure. Bob Thompson
asked if the development would be the same value as other developments in the area.
Chair Jason Stokes noted that this was beyond the purview of the VPC.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 483
MOTION: Committee member Michelle Ricart made a motion to approve Z-59-21-2.
The motion was seconded by Committee member Julie Read.
VOTE: 2-1 with Committee members Stokes and Read in favor and Committee member
Ricart in opposition.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 484
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-60-21-6 -
Approximately 65 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street (Ordinance G-6960)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-60-21-
6 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-3
(Multifamily Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow
multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (0.21-acres) and R-3 (0.42-acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 0.63-acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Chapter 2, LLC; c/o Geoff Edlund
Applicant: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec.
7, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation and with a
modified stipulation, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 11, 2022 and a
petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on Jan. 12, 2022 (see Attachment E). A
three-quarter vote will be required.
Location
Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Monterosa
Street.
Council District: 6
Page 485
Parcel Address: 3933, 3937, and 3943 E. Monterosa St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 486
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-60-21-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) AND R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.63 acre site located approximately 65 feet
west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Monterosa Street in a portion of Section
24, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from 0.21-acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) and 0.42-
acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) to “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 487
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum
3-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department. Shade may be provided
with a combination of trees and structural shade.
7. A minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of
the pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2,
2021. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
Page 488
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements
for the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 489
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 2nd day of February,
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 490
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-60-21-6
LOTS 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 10, RANCHO DEL MONTE UNIT TWO, ACCORDING TO
BOOK 50 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST,
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 491
Page 492
Attachment B
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
Camelback East Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (0.21
acres) and R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.42 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (0.63
acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest
corner of 40th Street and Monterosa Street
Owner Geoff Edlund, Chapter 2, LLC
Applicant/Representative Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
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
Monterosa Street Local Street 25-foot south half street
Classification
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal seeks to develop two vacant lots and a single-family residential property
into a townhome-style multifamily residential development. This will provide additional
housing options in the neighborhood while remaining consistent with the scale and
character of the area. The proposal will also provide an appropriate transition from the
commercial uses to the east and south of the site.
Page 493
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER, DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposed development is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood with a maximum building height of two stories, mid-century modern
architecture, and front-facing patios. Further, the development will incorporate
standards to buffer itself from the adjacent properties such as enhanced tree plantings
along its street frontage and perimeter setbacks, as well as providing all vehicular
access from the alley to the south of the site.
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.
As stipulated, the proposed development will provide large caliper trees to be planted
adjacent to the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street, along both side perimeters, and
within the surface parking area to the rear of the site.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix – See Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 10.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residential, vacant lots R1-6, R-3
North (Across
Single-family residential R1-6
Monterosa Street)
South Restaurant, yoga studio C-2
East Dentist office C-O
West Single-family residential R1-6
Page 494
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Planned Residential Development Option
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
15.23 dwelling units per acre;
Maximum dwelling unit 12 dwelling units per acre –
17.40 dwelling units per acre
density Met
with bonus
Minimum perimeter standards
Minimum building 20 feet adjacent to a public 20 feet adjacent to
setbacks street; this area is to be in Monterosa Street – Met
common ownership unless lots
front on the perimeter public 15 feet adjacent to east and
street; west property lines – Met
15 feet adjacent to property line 36 feet from south property
line – Met
Minimum landscape North: 20 feet North: 20 feet – Met
setbacks
South, east, and west: 5 feet East and west: 15 feet – Met
South: 0 feet – Not met*
Maximum height 2 stories or 30 feet for first 150 27 feet – Met
feet; 1-foot in 5-foot increase to
48 feet high, 4-story
maximum**
Maximum lot coverage 45% 44.14% – Met
Minimum common 5% of gross area 5.1% – Met
areas
Minimum parking 1 space per 2-bedroom unit (12 16 spaces – Met
required)
0.5 guest spaces per unit (4
required)
*Site plan modification or variance required
**There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building
setback to the maximum permitted height.
Page 495
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a
0.63-acre site located
approximately 65 feet
west of the southwest
corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street from
0.21 acres of R1-6
(Single-Family Residence
District) and 0.42 acres of
R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) to R-3
(Multifamily Residence
District) to allow a
multifamily residential
development.
Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
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 west of
the site. The property to
the south of the site is
designated Commercial,
as are the properties to
the east of the site,
across 40th Street. The
proposal is not consistent
with the Residential 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre
General Plan Land Use Map
designation. However, as Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
the site is under 10 acres,
a General Plan Amendment is not required. The proposed zoning district will
provide a land use transition from the higher intensity Commercial designations to
the south and east to the single-family residential neighborhood.
Page 496
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site consists of two vacant lots
that are zoned R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) and one existing
single-family residence zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence District).
The proposal seeks to rezone all
three properties to R-3 to be
consistent with the existing zoning
on the two vacant properties and
develop a multifamily residential
project. The zoning of the single-
family neighborhood permits a
maximum building height of 2
stories and 30 feet. The proposal Zoning Map
will be limited to the same maximum Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Department
height standard as the single-family
residential neighborhood to ensure compatibility in scale and character.
To the east of the site is a dentist’s office zoned C-O (Commercial Office –
Restricted Commercial District) and to the south is a mixed-use retail
center zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) that contains restaurants and
other businesses such as a yoga studio. The parking lot that serves this retail
center is directly adjacent to the subject site. The proposal for a two-story
multifamily residential development will provide a transition from the commercial
uses to the single-family residential homes.
Current site conditions
Source: Google Street and Aerial View
Page 497
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
PROPOSAL
4. The proposed site plan depicts an eight-unit multifamily residential development
that prioritizes the pedestrian environment along Monterosa Street by providing
pedestrian-only access to individual units from the street. All vehicular access and
parking is proposed on the southern portion of the site, where it will be accessed
through the adjacent alley. Vehicular maneuvering in the alleyway is not permitted
per the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and will thus require that the developer obtain
a variance. As such, staff is not recommending general conformance to the site
plan. The surface parking spaces will be separated from the buildings with a wall
but will be accessible from each individual unit through gates for every two
spaces. There will also be a community entrance gate from the alley on the
southwestern portion of the site.
Proposed Site Plan
Source: Jason Comer Architect
The proposal includes front-facing patios in conjunction with the front pedestrian
entrances, which will be connected to the public sidewalk via individual pathways.
To ensure a walkable and pedestrian-friendly streetscape, these elements are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3. Staff is recommending that the required
landscape setback along Monterosa Street be planted with large caliper single-
trunk trees to provide shade to the public sidewalk. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 4. Staff is further recommending that additional large-caliper trees
Page 498
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
be planted along both side yard setbacks to provide buffering from neighboring
properties. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
5. The proposed building elevations depict a townhome-style development with a
maximum building height of two stories and approximately 27 feet. The front
(north) elevations, which face Monterosa Street, depict primary entryways for
each individual unit, as well as ground-level doors to access front patios. Each
unit will have a second-floor balcony facing the street, and all are clearly
identifiable as individual residences with vertical architectural separations. The
proposed development is of the mid-century modern architectural style.
Proposed Building Elevations
Source: Jason Comer Architect
Staff is recommending general conformance to the building elevations due to the
small-scale residential character depicted, as well as the maximum building
height, which is compatible with the surrounding area and will provide an
appropriate transition and a buffer from adjacent commercial uses to the single-
family neighborhood. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1. Stipulation Nos. 1.a.
and 1.b. specifically address the most desirable elements from the building
elevations, which are the building height and the clearly identifiable pedestrian
entryways along Monterosa Street.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s
Page 499
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over
163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to
demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed
development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing
units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will address the
supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a more
sustainable fashion.
7. 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. Staff is recommending that required landscape
setbacks along the north, east, and west property lines be planted with large
caliper shade trees to maximize shade coverage on site and on the public
sidewalk. Staff is also recommending that the surface parking area be shaded
with a combination of structural and tree shade. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 4 through 6.
8. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe and comfortable
pedestrian environment along Monterosa Street, staff is recommending that the
developer construct a minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk for the length of the
property, and that individual residential units have pedestrian-only access from
this street, with front-facing patio elements and pedestrian pathways to connect
unit entrances to the public sidewalk. Staff is further recommending robust tree
plantings within the landscape setback along Monterosa Street to provide shade
to the public sidewalk. These recommendations are addressed in Stipulation Nos.
2 through 4.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. 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. As stipulated, the project will incorporate bicycle parking spaces for
the community, which will be installed per the requirements in the city’s Walkable
Urban (WU) Code. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
Page 500
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
10. 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 with provide trash and recycling collection on site in community
waste collection containers, which will be picked up from the alley.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
11. At the time this staff report was written, staff received one letter of opposition
citing concerns with the lack of compatibility with the single-family neighborhood
and that this project would set a precedent for similar future developments in the
area.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
12. 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.
13. The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways that connect all building entrances and exits, and
public sidewalks, and where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles, that they be
constructed of materials that visually contrast with parking and drive aisle
surfaces. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9.
14. The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer pave the
adjacent alley for the whole length of the property to 40th Street, and that all
streets be constructed with all required improvements and comply with current
ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10 and 11.
15. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. The Aviation Department also
requires that the project receive a No Hazard Determination from the FAA and
that the property owner grant and record an avigation easement. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 through 14.
OTHER
116. 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
Page 501
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
117. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may
be required.
Findings
1. The proposed development is compatible in scale and character with the
surrounding neighborhood and features clearly identifiable pedestrian entrances
and building height consistent with single-family development.
2. The proposed development will provide a buffer and an appropriate transition from
the commercial uses to the south and east to the site, from the existing single-
family neighborhood.
3. As stipulated, the proposed development will provide ample tree shade
throughout the site and along the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-
inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 502
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning
and Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees
and structural shade.
7. A minimum of two bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of the
pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2, 2021.
These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for
the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 503
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Site plan date stamped September 2, 2021 (1 page)
Elevations date stamped September 2, 2021 (1 page)
Community correspondence (1 page)
Page 504
R1-6
DEVONSHIRE AVE
40TH ST
39TH ST
R-3
MONTEROSA ST
C-2 *
C-O Z-SP-3-81
R-5 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
P-1 R-5
Z-59-94 R1-6
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-60-21
ID P
0.03 0.015 0 0.03 I-1 7
P Y R AM
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-21
DATE:
9/23/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.21 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-3 ( 0.42 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.63 Acres QS 17-36 H-10 TO:
R-3 ( 0.63 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6, R-3 1, 6 1, 7
R-3 9 11
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 505
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-60-21.mxd
R1-6
DEVONSHIRE AVE
40TH ST
39TH ST
R-3
MONTEROSA ST
C-2 *
C-O Z-SP-3-81
R-5 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
P-1 R-5
Z-59-94 R1-6
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-60-21
ID P
0.03 0.015 0 0.03 I-1 7
P Y R AM
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-21
DATE:
9/23/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.21 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-3 ( 0.42 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.63 Acres QS 17-36 H-10 TO:
R-3 ( 0.63 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6, R-3 1, 6 1, 7
R-3 9 11
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 506
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-60-21.mxd
Page 507
Page 508
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Josiah Roberts
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21, SWCC of 40th St and Monterosa
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sofia,
I received an informational packet about this case via mail. My wife and I live in the area, a couple blocks north on
Heatherbrae Drive. I attended a portion of the Zoom meeting on October 19, but had trouble getting unmuted to
comment. I'm hoping it's not too late.
We have concerns about the proposed rezoning and planned development. We bought our home in 2008 because we
like the larger lots and open feel of the neighborhood. I think many of our neighbors would say the same. This rezoning
and proposed development would change the character of the immediate neighborhood. Although we are not directly
impacted, we are concerned this could set a precedent that would allow for similar developments within the
neighborhood in the future.
The area has already changed considerably since 2008. There are more businesses in the area and we are seeing
significantly more traffic, especially on 40th Street. This is to be expected due to the desirability of the area. However,
we would like the character of our neighborhood to be maintained. The proposed development clearly changes the
density and I see no advantage other than allowing the developer to make a bigger profit (and maybe more property tax
income for the County).
I urge the City to deny this request and maintain the three lots as single family homes. The developer can build three
new homes and make a good profit.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Josiah Roberts
602‐690‐6428
3917 E Heatherbrae Drive
Page 509
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-60-21-6
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-3
(Multifamily Residence District)
Request To R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Monterosa Street
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with a
modification
VPC Vote 15-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ms. Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location,
current and surrounding zoning, and General Plan Land Use Map designation. She
explained that the request covers three current residential lots, two of which are already
zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District). The request is to rezone one lot that is
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to the same R-3 zoning as the other two
lots. At staff’s request, the applicant agreed to include all three lots to facilitate
stipulating the entire site for improvements. She then presented the proposed site plan
and elevations, noting the compatibility in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood. She stated that the proposal will provide a transition from the commercial
uses to the south to the residential neighborhood to the north. Ms. Mastikhina then
presented the staff recommendation for approval, along with the recommended
stipulations.
Mr. Brian Greathouse, representative with Burch & Crachiollo, provided an overview of
the request, noting that they had agreed to include all three lots in the rezoning request
to ensure transparency with the community as well as to allow staff to stipulate
improvements such as landscaping and walkability throughout the entire site. He
explained that the two lots zoned for multifamily are currently vacant and the previous
buildings were demolished approximately five years ago. He then noted that the existing
single-family residence on the third lot is uninhabitable and in no condition to sell or
rent. He then explained that this site is in an interesting location, with a dentist office to
the east and restaurants and a parking lot to the south, and that the believes the
proposed townhomes are an appropriate transitional land use. He stated that the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 510
building elevations were designed by local architect Jason Comer, and that the interior
will be designed by Joel Contreras, both of whom have designed high quality
development projects throughout the city. He then presented conceptual renderings of
the project, noting the unique architecture and walkability and pedestrian-friendliness.
He addressed some community concerns that arose through the process. The first was
regarding on-street parking, to which he replied that each unit will have two designated
parking spaces in a carport in the rear of the site, so residents will not have a need to
park on Monterosa Avenue. The second concern was that they were proposing to
rezone all three lots to allows townhomes, to which he clarified that only one lot will
effectively be rezoned, while the other two already have the multifamily designation. He
then presented the proposed floor plans of the units and asked if the committee had any
questions.
Dawn Augusta asked if there had been any consideration or traffic study of the current
access conditions to the rear alley, noting that northbound turns would exacerbate
already problematic traffic patterns. Greathouse replied that due to the small increase
in permissible units, a traffic study was not conducted nor was it required by the city.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Mathieux, neighborhood resident, expressed his support for the proposal, stating
that the high-quality design and pedestrian-friendliness will add value to the
neighborhood and that it will provide a buffer from the parking areas to the south.
William Jay Lichtsinn stated that the vacant lots have been used for overflow parking
for the adjacent businesses and expressed concern that this overflow parking will now
take place along the street, inconveniencing the neighborhood. Greathouse replied that
the property owner has worked with the Police Department to address the illegal parking
and homeless encampments for months, and that there is already overflow parking on
the street from the dentist and restaurants. He stated that the townhomes will not
change this condition, as they cannot monitor public streets where there are no parking
restrictions.
Chair Swart stated that there was a case on 40th Street and Indian School Road with
the same concern, which is that the expansion of the business there would exacerbate
on-street parking. However, those property owners did not have any control over public
streets, much like in this case. He stated that this will force the city to address long-
overdue issues with on-street parking issues.
MOTION:
Vic Grace made a motion to approve this case per the staff recommendation. Chair
Swart requested an amendment to the motion to include a modification to increase the
required number of bicycle parking space from two to eight. Grace accepted the
amendment. Ashley Nye seconded the motion.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Swart offered to help the applicant with parking and safety enforcement in the
area, as he is very involved with these matters.
Augusta expressed her support for the multifamily rezoning but reiterated her concern
with northbound traffic on 40th Street attempting to turn left into the alley where the
parking is located, as the turn area coincides with the left turn lane onto Indian School
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 511
Road. She asked that the applicant look into a different parking arrangement, as this will
create problems. Chair Swart asked staff if the Street Transportation Department had
provided feedback on this case. Mastikhina stated that the only comment from that
department was regarding paving of the alley.
Christina Eichelkraut asked that the applicant address a question brought up by
resident Pam MacMillan in her letters to the city regarding if there will be individual back
yards in the rear that residents can spend time in, instead of being on their street-facing
balconies. The resident’s concern was privacy intrusion into the single-family homes to
the north of the project. She then stated that she has no problems with the proposal, but
simply wanted to ensure that all community questions and concerns were addressed.
Greathouse stated that the rear yard will be commonly held and will have seating and
barbecue areas for resident use.
Nye seconded committee member Augusta’s concern regarding the northbound turn
into the alley and asked that the applicant work with the Street Transportation
Department to address this concern and come up with an alternative access solution.
She also mentioned that there is an avid biking community in this area and that
residents will likely receive guests who bike to the property. She suggested that
additional bicycle parking spaces be provided in the common area to accommodate
this. Greathouse stated that his client is happy to add more bicycle parking spaces.
Grace stated that, based on Google aerials, it looks like the previous structures on the
site had a carport along the alley, so parking in that area was present before.
VOTE:
15-0; Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Augusta,
Bayless, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, Grace, McKee, Miller, Nye, O’Malley, Paceley, Rush,
and Sharaby in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommended approval of the case
per the staff recommendation with a modification to Stipulation No. 7 to increase the
number of bicycle parking spaces provided.
The following stipulations incorporate the changes approved by the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee on December 7, 2021 with modifications in bold text:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 512
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-
inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning
and Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees
and structural shade.
7. A minimum of two EIGHT bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted
U and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of
the pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2,
2021. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for
the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 513
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 514
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-60-21-6
Location: Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street
From: R1-6 and R-3
To: R-3
Acreage: 0.63
Proposal: Multifamily Residential
Applicant: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Owner: Chapter 2, LLC; c/o Geoff Edlund
Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 12/7/2021 Approval, per staff recommendation with a modified stipulation.
Vote: 15-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-60-21-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as
read into the record.
Maker: Mangum
Second: Johnson
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed development is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood and features clearly identifiable pedestrian entrances and building height
consistent with single-family development.
2. The proposed development will provide a buffer and an appropriate transition from the
commercial uses to the south and east to the site, from the existing single-family
neighborhood.
3. As stipulated, the proposed development will provide ample tree shade throughout the
site and along the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street.
Page 515
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly identifiable as
the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the south
side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-inch
caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east property
lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper
drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking
area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees and
structural shade.
7. A minimum of two EIGHT bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of the
pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2, 2021. These
parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 516
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for the
alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping, and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for
the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.ௗௗ
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the property.
The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and
instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to
properly assess the materials.
16. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 517
Attachment E
170-32-048 170-32-047 170-32-046 170-32-045 170-32-044 170-32-043 171-26-001 171-26-0 02
170-32-064170-32-049
171-26-003
-0
-26
170-32-065 170-32-066 170-32-067 170-32-068 170-32-069 170-32-070 171-26-0 14
171-26-0 13
DEVONSHIRE AVE
170-32-126 170-32-125 170-32-124 170-32-123 170-32-122 170-32-121 170-32-120 170-32-119
171-26-0 15
171-26-0 16
171-26-0 17
170-32-129 170-32-1 30 170-32-131 170-32-132 170-32-133 170-32-134 170-32-135 170-32-136
MONTEROSA ST
170-32-097 170-32-096 170-32-0 94
170-32-0 95 170-32-093 170-32-092 170-32-091 170-32-090 170-32-089 40TH ST
171-26-061G
170-32-101
170-32-0 99C
170-32-0 99D
170-32-1 00B
170-32-099B
171-26-0 61B
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Legend
127-18-100D
Zoning Petition Area
127-17-108
Proposed Amendment Area
127-18-143 127-18-100C
127-17-1 03
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 8/17 = 47%
Lots/Tracts/Condos
% Area = 0.86ac./4.14ac. = 21%
Signed Petition 3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
127-17-107
Petition Verification Map
0 37.5 75 Feet Page 518 for Z-60-21-6
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 1/13/2022
Page 519
Page 520
Page 521
Page 522
Page 523
Page 524
Attachment F
Sofia Mastikhina
From: geoff mathieux
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21 Registration to Speak at CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE on
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m
Hello Sofia,
I am writing to register to speak at the at CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE meeting on
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Please register me.
Also I would like to submit the following comment:
I am a neighbor to the property 65'+‐West of the SWC of 40th St. & Monterosa St. I support this project as it is
a minimal change (only changing one of three zones to enable a high quality housing development which fits
nicely in the neighborhood. It will be tasteful and add value to the neighborhood. Please approve the
Rezoning application for the proposed townhomes "Monterosa Townhomes".The proposal is to rezone the
property from R1‐6 (one lot) and R‐3 (two lots) to R‐3 for all three.
Thank you,
Geoffroy
Geoffroy Mathieux cell (415) 420‐2222
Page 525
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Christopher Alt
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:33 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: agenda item #6, Z-60-21-6
Hi Sofia,
I am writing to let you know that I support the request to rezone to R-3 provided the applicant addresses traffic concerns. Specifically,
the traffic issues where the alley meets 40th Street. Vehicles very often get backed up at Indian School and it is already challenging for
commercial traffic to access/exit from the commercial development there. With the alley entrance right there next to the commercial
entrance it is likely to cause additional problems, likely an unsafe condition.
CHRISTOPHER ALT
AIA
PRINCIPAL
Office: 602 251 3800
Mobile: 602 283 6421
alt@studioma.com
studioma.com
Page 526
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Greg Bruns
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Support for item #6, Z-60-21-6
Hi Sofia –
I am unable to speak at the meeting tonight for the rezone request for 40th Street & Monterosa, but I hope you are able
to consider my support for this project – I know I’m late but I hope you’re able to fit this in.
My property is at 3850 E Indian School Road – less than a block away – and I have lived and worked in the area for 18
years. Through all of the changes over the last two decades, I’ve never had a real estate professional or developer
approach me and ask what I thought about their impending purchase/project. I was pleased to see Geoff Edlund do so
with his proposal for Monterosa Homes. I remember how that dilapidated property looked for years and the type of
people it drew… and now it’s an unattractive vacant lot, so I welcome a smart design from a responsible person who has
a stake in the game (he plans to purchase a unit for himself to live there).
I have reviewed the drawings and plans and spoken with Mr. Edlund at length about his intentions and ideas for the area
and his property. I like that the project design takes into account the surrounding community and overall desert
environment. It includes grass, trees and a keen curb appeal. It doesn’t add to street parking, which is an issue that
concerns the neighborhood, and it helps with the larger issue we have in the Valley with sprawl. As we build more multi‐
family housing in this central Phoenix area, we encourage more pedestrian and bicycle traffic – which has increased
tremendously in the last three years. To the west and north (in the 3600‐3800 block between Indian School and
Campbell Ave), there are many nice examples of multi‐family housing lots that are on the street with single‐family home
lots. Putting multi‐ and single‐family lots next to one another doesn’t allow for a completely uniform design. However,
that doesn’t currently exist on Monterosa on the southeast side… with a large office lot and multi‐family zoning on the
southeast side, there’s also a large billboard and huge retail complex just to the south.
If we have a responsible builder who wants to create something nice that helps our community and that person is willing
to work with the neighbors to consider ideas, changes and improvements, I support it.
I understand that we are dealing with rezoning ONE LOT here to add space for his construction of multi‐family housing
and by rezoning that lot we are deciding if this project is going to be five units or eight. I think the best plan here is to
grant the request to allow R‐3 multi‐housing on the one lot to the west on Monterosa, so Mr. Edlund can build his 8
units.
Thank you –
Greg Bruns
3850 E Indian School Rd
Phoenix AZ 85018
602‐840‐6379 (o)
602‐319‐5930 (c)
Greg A Bruns
Publisher
Arcadia News
Page 527
Racelle Escolar
From: geoff mathieux
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 6:23 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21-6 Comment and Registration to Speak on Thursday, January 6th, 2022, at 6:00 p.m ITEM #17
Case No. Z‐60‐21‐6 ITEM #17 Comment and Registration to Speak on Thursday, January 6th, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
Dear Planning Commission,
I am sending a comment and writing to register to speak at the Planning Commission Hearing on Thursday,
January 6th, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.
Below is my comment:
I am a neighbor to the property 65'+‐West of the SWC of 40th St. & Monterosa St. I support this project as it is
a minimal change (only changing one of three zones to enable a high quality housing development which fits
nicely in the neighborhood). It will be tasteful with trees in front and parking in the back, and will add value to
the neighborhood. Please approve the Rezoning application for one of three of the proposed townhomes
"Monterosa Townhomes" (only one of three actually needs a zoning change).The proposal is to rezone the
property from R1‐6 (one lot) and R‐3 (two lots) to R‐3 for all three.
Thank you,
Geoffroy
Geoffroy Mathieux cell (415) 420‐2222
Page1 528
Attachment G
Sofia Mastikhina
From: PAM MACMILLAN
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: rhorowitz@bcattorneys.com; bgreathouse@bcattorneys.com
Subject: Rezoning application for 40th and Monterosa (Z-60-21-6)
To: Sofia Mastikhina, Ricki Horowitz, Brian Greathouse
From: Pam MacMillan, owner of 4013 E. Devonshire
Re: rezoning R1-6 to townhouses
I am reaching out to let you that we vigorously oppose the rezoning of residential lots on Monterosa street so
that townhouses can be built.
I strongly oppose this rezoning for several reasons:
1. This area for 50+ years has been single family homes. A few condo/townhouses have been built on 40th
street in the past 10 years but none have actually been on one of the side/residential streets. These multiple
housing projects were built at the strong opposition of the neighborhood. Two story and taller buildings ruin
other neighbors views, increase people density and car density thus adding to trash, noise pollution, traffic
congestion and putting additional pressure on the area to absorb more and more people, cars into schools,
restaurants and other retail establishments.
2. There is a reason the area is zoned R1-6 and that because it is a residential neighborhood. It is full of single
family homes occupied by families. Townhouses were never intended to be built in these neighborhoods. It will
hurt the property values of the neighbors in the surrounding area. They bought their single family homes based
on the knowledge that the neighborhood was zoned R1-6.
3. This is not affordable housing which is what is needed (on Indian School and other major streets). The
Citrine, the other condos on 40th street as well as the soon to be finished Grove (C.back/44th) are all high end
rentals housing thousands of additional people and cars. The intersection at Camelback and 44th St is already
listed as the “top 10 most dangerous intersections in Phoenix.” The intersection at Indian School and 40th St is
also very dangerous - especially during pick up and drop off times at Christ Lutheran School.
Please let this residential neighborhood remain just that - single family homes filled with people living there for
many years, typically from recently married to newly retired, not people who move in to a rental on a temporary
basis. They never bother to get to know their neighbors or care about the neighborhood because in a year or
so they will move on - probably into a residential community without townhomes.
Here are some of my questions:
1. From the architectural drawing it does not appear that there are garages. Is that true? If so, that means a lot
of parked cars on the street. Also it appears from the drawing that the balconies are facing north and looking
directly into the homes of the people on the north side of Monterosa.
2. What in the back yards? Pool? Grass? Desert? Nothing? From the drawing, it looks like the balconies is
where people will sit. What about noise? Privacy for the neighbors?
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to reject this rezoning request.
Thank you for reading and taking into consideration my concerns.
Pam MacMillan
Page 529
Sofia Mastikhina
From: elizabeth lennon
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:42 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning
I oppose rezoning from residential to allow 8 townhouses to be built in the 40th street Monterosa intersection.
The neighborhood was never intended to have townhomes and the traffic is already very dangerous at Indian
School and 40th street.
I appreciate your understanding as an active member of this great community filled with young families with
children.
Regards,
Elizabeth Lennon
5905 e calle tubería
Phoenix, az 85018
Page 530
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Pamela MacMillan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 2:44 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning
Hi Sofia: This is Pam MacMillan again.
I am sure in the big scheme of things my comments won’t make a bit of difference but I would like to share my thoughts
regarding re‐zoning in general with the planning committee.
It is a very slippery slope once you start to rezone neighborhoods. Arcadia is the perfect case study for this. In the last 10
years, Arcadia has gone from single story ranch homes on big irrigated lots to mansions that are built from lot line to lot
line. Most new builds are now two story homes that ruin the view of Camelback Mountain for others in the
neighborhood. There is barely a citrus tree left and most new comers have no idea that Arcadia was once a citrus grove.
I understand all the reasons why this has happened but it has ruined the charm and uniqueness of Arcadia. Once you
started to allow rezoning in Arcadia, the requests came pouring in: larger homes, two story homes, splitting of lots to
built two homes…the list goes on and on. Also rezoning allowed high‐rise apartments, condos, townhomes and soon to
be hotel on the all the major streets surrounding Arcadia.
Let's be honest, the structures that were on Monterosa at 40th street were built to looked like single family ranch style
homes. Yes, they were old and yes they were multi housing units and yes they probably needed to be replaced after the
fire but the modern two story all glass townhouses that will be built don’t exactly fit in the neighborhood AND DO
increase the number of cars, people on Monterosa. Also, the reason the single family home needs to be torn down is
because the current owner choose not to maintain the property.
I completely agree with Ms Augusta that the traffic department needs to get involved. I use the intersection at 40th and
Indian School almost every day. That corner has changed significantly since 2015. There is alway lots of trafffic coming
and going from the restaurants, yoga studio and other retail stores on the northwest corner. It is incredibly dangerous to
attempt to turn left (north) out of the strip center onto 40th street. The plan to use the alley as a driveway to get to the
carports for the townhouses has not been well thought out and is dangerous.
I have attached photos of the original structures and the single family home. I realize the townhouses will be built. The
purpose of this letter is to ask the planning committee to be careful of allowing so much rezoning. It changes the
character, purpose of neighborhood zoned for single family homes.
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
Racelle Escolar
From: Dana Zuidema
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:13 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case no z-60-21-6
Hello,
I am writing this email to voice my opposition of case no z‐60‐21‐6. I live in the neighborhood and do not support the
rezoning of this single family lot to multi family housing.
Dana Zuidema
3919 E. Devonshire ave
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page1 534
Racelle Escolar
From: Gayle Milling
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:41 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6
This is a note to state that my husband and I, Gayle and Richard Milling of 3931 E Heatherbrae Drive strongly oppose the
rezoning of Monterosa from single family home lots to multi‐family homes. There is a significant risk to increased traffic
on 40th street which is already extremely busy and hazardous for kids and families as well as decreased character of the
singe‐family home neighborhood we all love.
We beg you to not move forward with this.
Regards ‐
Richard and Gayle Milling
Sent from my iPad
Page1 535
Racelle Escolar
From: Connie Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:25 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No-60-21-6
Good afternoon! I wish to voice my opposition on rezoning Monterosa Street. Not only will building the “eight” two‐
story townhouses on a “single family home lot“ decrease the character of our single family home neighborhood, but it
would increase dangerous traffic patterns & cause more excess parking on Monterosa Street which is already an issue as
the lot in question is bordered by commercial properties & overflow parking comes onto our street as it is. Please
consider the safety of our children & grandchildren in forming your decision. Thank you! Connie Bennett at 3926 E
Monterosa St.
Page1 536
From: just me
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:38 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-60-21-6 opposition
Application #: Z-60-21-6
From:R1-6 andR-3
To:R-3
40th Street and Monterosa Street
Proposal:Multifamily Residential
mailto:pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
January 5, 2022
Dear Planning Commission.
My apologies that this letter/email is being written and submitted on January 5. I hope you will still consider it.
I'm writing to express my very strong opposition to allowing more housing units on the lot on Monterosa Street just west of
40th Street. Please do not allow this.
The planning commission designs and the zoning requirements were set a long time ago with the intent of keeping the
neighborhood nice. Please don't allow this change as there is no need to do so – other than more profit for the
builder/developer and that is not and never should be a valid reason.
I have lived in this neighborhood many years. It is in one of the hottest zip codes right now and is shockingly popular to
builders and flippers. Builders and flippers who come in to make as much money as they can by cramming more
buildings/square footage into the lots and more bodies in those buildings and more cars on the streets, with zero regard to
what happens to the neighborhood and the traffic around it once they've made their profits and left – aesthetics, number
of people, lack of parking, noise, trash, etc., etc.
On this townhouse development, it says two parking spaces per unit, but will there be a limit of two cars per unit? And
where will their visitors park? More residents means more cars, whether they live there or are visiting. There is not any
more room on Monterosa Street for more cars to park. Entering or leaving Monterosa at 40th Street at certain times of the
day is very challenging because of the number of cars parked there.
We don't need more people and more traffic to clog up our once lovely, friendly neighborhood. We don't need any more
two-story mega homes – or townhouses in this case - going up in our neighborhood. We are losing the character of our
neighborhood. Cramming more in is not the answer.
Please have consideration for those of us who have lived in and continue to live in this neighborhood.
I can't help but emphasize the cars/parking/traffic issue, but my opposition is more than that, as I've stated above.
None of the neighbors I've spoken to are in favor of this change. I do not know how many are writing or speaking out
about this to the Commission. Sadly, as you well know, getting people participate and be involved is quite a challenge.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my comments.
P. Lyons
3828 E. Monterosa St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page1 537
Racelle Escolar
From: Rosemary Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 6:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case number Z 60 21 6
To the zoning committee: it's time to vote no to converting a single family home lot to multifamily in a residential
neighborhood. whoever this developer is was not clear when initially requesting a change to zoning, indicating they
wanted the zoning change to a property close to 40th St. It's on a residential street and it is a single family home. It will
increase traffic, crowd an already crowded intersection, bring down home values, and create ? rentals we do not need.
It is bad enough single family homes are converted to hotels or you may prefer to call them Airbnbs. We have lived for
40 years in this neighborhood. We have driven out drug dealers and prostitutes. We have supported Creighton School
district and Phoenix Union High School District not just by paying taxes but sending our children to these inner city
schools. Does this developer care about these schools? We are tired of fighting to keep this a residential neighborhood
so please help us and stop these greedy developers. Sincerely Rosemary Scott and Alan C. Gee
Page1 538
Racelle Escolar
From: Peter Eastburn
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:09 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: pmathes_222@yahoo.com
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6
To whom it may concern,
The biggest concern is traffic at the corner of Monterosa and 40th street. It already backs up past Devonshire on 40th
street most evenings and always on Friday and sometimes on Saturday. The street parking on Monterosa in front of the
proposed apartment project will be devastating to the neighborhood, this is a signal family neighborhood not an
opportunity zone for someone to make a buck off of multifamily residences.
Regards,
Peter S. Eastburn
Page1 539
Racelle Escolar
From: Tristahn Schaub
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:23 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6 Opposition
To whom it may concern ‐ I am writing in opposition to the proposed multifamily development at Monterosa and 40th
St. Since the mortuary was sold, that corner has become overstuffed and commercially exploited. Parking has been
insane and the businesses are now generating nighttime noise complaints from nearby residences. This proposed
devlopment seems to add to the problems already taking place on that corner.
At first glance of the project I thought, “Who on earth would want to buy one of these townhomes stacked on top of
one anotyher and shoved right up against that commercial nuisance?” and simply dismissed the appolication. However,
haveing heard from local residents, I feel compelled to spoeak out more formally, not for its gross exploitation of the
land and density but for the impacts to the community. I am 100% in agreement with the following concerns which
have been raised:
Loss of Property Value: Multifamily homes are known to drive down the value surrounding homes. We do not want our
property value driven down due to this development.
Loss of Character of Single‐Family Home Neighborhood: If this rezone is approved, it may set precedent allowing other
similar rezoning requests to be approved. This means our community could shift from single‐family homes to more
multifamily homes, which will impact the character of our neighborhood. The rezone would also allow for rentals.
Creation of Dangerous Traffic Patterns: Four driveways exist in total on the east and west side of 40th Street between
Indian School and Monterosa Street. Adding eight additional units in this space will create a higher traffic volume, which
will make an already dangerous intersection more dangerous.
Creation of Excess Parking on Monterosa Street: Excess parking is already an issue on Monterosa Street due to the
development on Indian School and 40th Street. The spillover parking on the narrow Monterosa Street creates danger for
pedestrians. Eight additional units will create more parking issues and danger
My hope is that you restore sanity to how this parcel is being zoned and managed by denying this development request.
Thank you,
Tristahn Schaub
Page1 540
Report
Approximately 65 Feet West of the Southwest Corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street (Ordinance G-6960)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-60-21-
6 and rezone the site from R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-3
(Multifamily Residence District) to R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) to allow
multifamily residential.
Summary
Current Zoning: R1-6 (0.21-acres) and R-3 (0.42-acres)
Proposed Zoning: R-3
Acreage: 0.63-acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential
Owner: Chapter 2, LLC; c/o Geoff Edlund
Applicant: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec.
7, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation and with a
modified stipulation, by a vote of 15-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 11, 2022 and a
petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on Jan. 12, 2022 (see Attachment E). A
three-quarter vote will be required.
Location
Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Monterosa
Street.
Council District: 6
Page 485
Parcel Address: 3933, 3937, and 3943 E. Monterosa St.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 486
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-60-21-6) FROM R1-6 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) AND R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO R-3 (MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.63 acre site located approximately 65 feet
west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and Monterosa Street in a portion of Section
24, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is
hereby changed from 0.21-acres of “R1-6” (Single-Family Residence District) and 0.42-
acres of “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District) to “R-3” (Multifamily Residence District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 487
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date
stamped September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum
3-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or
in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live
groundcover shall provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed
throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department. Shade may be provided
with a combination of trees and structural shade.
7. A minimum of eight bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of
the pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2,
2021. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
Page 488
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for
pedestrians, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments
that visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements
for the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney
prior to final site plan approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed
and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
Page 489
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 2nd day of February,
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 490
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-60-21-6
LOTS 2, 3, AND 4, BLOCK 10, RANCHO DEL MONTE UNIT TWO, ACCORDING TO
BOOK 50 OF MAPS, PAGE 9, SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST,
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA.
Page 491
Page 492
Attachment B
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
Camelback East Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) (0.21
acres) and R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
(0.42 acres)
Request To: R-3 (Multifamily Residence District) (0.63
acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest
corner of 40th Street and Monterosa Street
Owner Geoff Edlund, Chapter 2, LLC
Applicant/Representative Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
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
Monterosa Street Local Street 25-foot south half street
Classification
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of
local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal seeks to develop two vacant lots and a single-family residential property
into a townhome-style multifamily residential development. This will provide additional
housing options in the neighborhood while remaining consistent with the scale and
character of the area. The proposal will also provide an appropriate transition from the
commercial uses to the east and south of the site.
Page 493
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER, DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Create new development or
redevelopment that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhoods and incorporates adequate development standards to prevent
negative impact(s) on the residential properties.
The proposed development is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood with a maximum building height of two stories, mid-century modern
architecture, and front-facing patios. Further, the development will incorporate
standards to buffer itself from the adjacent properties such as enhanced tree plantings
along its street frontage and perimeter setbacks, as well as providing all vehicular
access from the alley to the south of the site.
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.
As stipulated, the proposed development will provide large caliper trees to be planted
adjacent to the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street, along both side perimeters, and
within the surface parking area to the rear of the site.
Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix – See Background Item No. 6.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 7.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 8.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.
Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 10.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Single-family residential, vacant lots R1-6, R-3
North (Across
Single-family residential R1-6
Monterosa Street)
South Restaurant, yoga studio C-2
East Dentist office C-O
West Single-family residential R1-6
Page 494
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Planned Residential Development Option
Provisions on the
Standards Requirements
Proposed site Plan
15.23 dwelling units per acre;
Maximum dwelling unit 12 dwelling units per acre –
17.40 dwelling units per acre
density Met
with bonus
Minimum perimeter standards
Minimum building 20 feet adjacent to a public 20 feet adjacent to
setbacks street; this area is to be in Monterosa Street – Met
common ownership unless lots
front on the perimeter public 15 feet adjacent to east and
street; west property lines – Met
15 feet adjacent to property line 36 feet from south property
line – Met
Minimum landscape North: 20 feet North: 20 feet – Met
setbacks
South, east, and west: 5 feet East and west: 15 feet – Met
South: 0 feet – Not met*
Maximum height 2 stories or 30 feet for first 150 27 feet – Met
feet; 1-foot in 5-foot increase to
48 feet high, 4-story
maximum**
Maximum lot coverage 45% 44.14% – Met
Minimum common 5% of gross area 5.1% – Met
areas
Minimum parking 1 space per 2-bedroom unit (12 16 spaces – Met
required)
0.5 guest spaces per unit (4
required)
*Site plan modification or variance required
**There shall be a 15-foot maximum height within ten feet of a single-family zoned
district, which height may be increased one foot for each additional one foot of building
setback to the maximum permitted height.
Page 495
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a
0.63-acre site located
approximately 65 feet
west of the southwest
corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street from
0.21 acres of R1-6
(Single-Family Residence
District) and 0.42 acres of
R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) to R-3
(Multifamily Residence
District) to allow a
multifamily residential
development.
Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
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 west of
the site. The property to
the south of the site is
designated Commercial,
as are the properties to
the east of the site,
across 40th Street. The
proposal is not consistent
with the Residential 3.5 to
5 dwelling units per acre
General Plan Land Use Map
designation. However, as Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
the site is under 10 acres,
a General Plan Amendment is not required. The proposed zoning district will
provide a land use transition from the higher intensity Commercial designations to
the south and east to the single-family residential neighborhood.
Page 496
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site consists of two vacant lots
that are zoned R-3 (Multifamily
Residence District) and one existing
single-family residence zoned R1-6
(Single-Family Residence District).
The proposal seeks to rezone all
three properties to R-3 to be
consistent with the existing zoning
on the two vacant properties and
develop a multifamily residential
project. The zoning of the single-
family neighborhood permits a
maximum building height of 2
stories and 30 feet. The proposal Zoning Map
will be limited to the same maximum Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development
Department
height standard as the single-family
residential neighborhood to ensure compatibility in scale and character.
To the east of the site is a dentist’s office zoned C-O (Commercial Office –
Restricted Commercial District) and to the south is a mixed-use retail
center zoned C-2 (Intermediate Commercial District) that contains restaurants and
other businesses such as a yoga studio. The parking lot that serves this retail
center is directly adjacent to the subject site. The proposal for a two-story
multifamily residential development will provide a transition from the commercial
uses to the single-family residential homes.
Current site conditions
Source: Google Street and Aerial View
Page 497
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
PROPOSAL
4. The proposed site plan depicts an eight-unit multifamily residential development
that prioritizes the pedestrian environment along Monterosa Street by providing
pedestrian-only access to individual units from the street. All vehicular access and
parking is proposed on the southern portion of the site, where it will be accessed
through the adjacent alley. Vehicular maneuvering in the alleyway is not permitted
per the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance and will thus require that the developer obtain
a variance. As such, staff is not recommending general conformance to the site
plan. The surface parking spaces will be separated from the buildings with a wall
but will be accessible from each individual unit through gates for every two
spaces. There will also be a community entrance gate from the alley on the
southwestern portion of the site.
Proposed Site Plan
Source: Jason Comer Architect
The proposal includes front-facing patios in conjunction with the front pedestrian
entrances, which will be connected to the public sidewalk via individual pathways.
To ensure a walkable and pedestrian-friendly streetscape, these elements are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3. Staff is recommending that the required
landscape setback along Monterosa Street be planted with large caliper single-
trunk trees to provide shade to the public sidewalk. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 4. Staff is further recommending that additional large-caliper trees
Page 498
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
be planted along both side yard setbacks to provide buffering from neighboring
properties. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
5. The proposed building elevations depict a townhome-style development with a
maximum building height of two stories and approximately 27 feet. The front
(north) elevations, which face Monterosa Street, depict primary entryways for
each individual unit, as well as ground-level doors to access front patios. Each
unit will have a second-floor balcony facing the street, and all are clearly
identifiable as individual residences with vertical architectural separations. The
proposed development is of the mid-century modern architectural style.
Proposed Building Elevations
Source: Jason Comer Architect
Staff is recommending general conformance to the building elevations due to the
small-scale residential character depicted, as well as the maximum building
height, which is compatible with the surrounding area and will provide an
appropriate transition and a buffer from adjacent commercial uses to the single-
family neighborhood. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 1. Stipulation Nos. 1.a.
and 1.b. specifically address the most desirable elements from the building
elevations, which are the building height and the clearly identifiable pedestrian
entryways along Monterosa Street.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
6. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing
with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased
housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s
Page 499
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over
163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to
demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed
development supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing
units by 2030 by contributing to a variety housing types that will address the
supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using vacant land in a more
sustainable fashion.
7. 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. Staff is recommending that required landscape
setbacks along the north, east, and west property lines be planted with large
caliper shade trees to maximize shade coverage on site and on the public
sidewalk. Staff is also recommending that the surface parking area be shaded
with a combination of structural and tree shade. These are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 4 through 6.
8. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe and comfortable
pedestrian environment along Monterosa Street, staff is recommending that the
developer construct a minimum five-foot-wide sidewalk for the length of the
property, and that individual residential units have pedestrian-only access from
this street, with front-facing patio elements and pedestrian pathways to connect
unit entrances to the public sidewalk. Staff is further recommending robust tree
plantings within the landscape setback along Monterosa Street to provide shade
to the public sidewalk. These recommendations are addressed in Stipulation Nos.
2 through 4.
9. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. 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. As stipulated, the project will incorporate bicycle parking spaces for
the community, which will be installed per the requirements in the city’s Walkable
Urban (WU) Code. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 7.
Page 500
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
10. 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 with provide trash and recycling collection on site in community
waste collection containers, which will be picked up from the alley.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
11. At the time this staff report was written, staff received one letter of opposition
citing concerns with the lack of compatibility with the single-family neighborhood
and that this project would set a precedent for similar future developments in the
area.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
12. 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.
13. The Public Transit Department has requested that the developer provide clearly
defined, accessible pathways that connect all building entrances and exits, and
public sidewalks, and where pedestrian paths cross drive aisles, that they be
constructed of materials that visually contrast with parking and drive aisle
surfaces. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 8 and 9.
14. The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer pave the
adjacent alley for the whole length of the property to 40th Street, and that all
streets be constructed with all required improvements and comply with current
ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 10 and 11.
15. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. The Aviation Department also
requires that the project receive a No Hazard Determination from the FAA and
that the property owner grant and record an avigation easement. These are
addressed in Stipulation Nos. 12 through 14.
OTHER
116. 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
Page 501
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.
117. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may
be required.
Findings
1. The proposed development is compatible in scale and character with the
surrounding neighborhood and features clearly identifiable pedestrian entrances
and building height consistent with single-family development.
2. The proposed development will provide a buffer and an appropriate transition from
the commercial uses to the south and east to the site, from the existing single-
family neighborhood.
3. As stipulated, the proposed development will provide ample tree shade
throughout the site and along the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-
inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 502
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning
and Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees
and structural shade.
7. A minimum of two bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of the
pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2, 2021.
These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in
Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for
the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 503
Staff Report: Z-60-21-6
December 1, 2021
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Site plan date stamped September 2, 2021 (1 page)
Elevations date stamped September 2, 2021 (1 page)
Community correspondence (1 page)
Page 504
R1-6
DEVONSHIRE AVE
40TH ST
39TH ST
R-3
MONTEROSA ST
C-2 *
C-O Z-SP-3-81
R-5 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
P-1 R-5
Z-59-94 R1-6
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-60-21
ID P
0.03 0.015 0 0.03 I-1 7
P Y R AM
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-21
DATE:
9/23/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.21 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-3 ( 0.42 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.63 Acres QS 17-36 H-10 TO:
R-3 ( 0.63 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6, R-3 1, 6 1, 7
R-3 9 11
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 505
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-60-21.mxd
R1-6
DEVONSHIRE AVE
40TH ST
39TH ST
R-3
MONTEROSA ST
C-2 *
C-O Z-SP-3-81
R-5 C-2
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
P-1 R-5
Z-59-94 R1-6
I
PK
WY
19TH AVE
51ST AVE
EA
Miles K
Z-60-21
ID P
0.03 0.015 0 0.03 I-1 7
P Y R AM
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE CAREFREE HWY
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6
DOVE VALLEY RD
DYNAMITE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
FROM:
APPLICATION NO.
Z-60-21
DATE:
9/23/2021
REVISION DATES:
R1-6 ( 0.21 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
R-3 ( 0.42 a.c.)
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
0.63 Acres QS 17-36 H-10 TO:
R-3 ( 0.63 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R1-6, R-3 1, 6 1, 7
R-3 9 11
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 506
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-60-21.mxd
Page 507
Page 508
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Josiah Roberts
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2021 10:44 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21, SWCC of 40th St and Monterosa
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sofia,
I received an informational packet about this case via mail. My wife and I live in the area, a couple blocks north on
Heatherbrae Drive. I attended a portion of the Zoom meeting on October 19, but had trouble getting unmuted to
comment. I'm hoping it's not too late.
We have concerns about the proposed rezoning and planned development. We bought our home in 2008 because we
like the larger lots and open feel of the neighborhood. I think many of our neighbors would say the same. This rezoning
and proposed development would change the character of the immediate neighborhood. Although we are not directly
impacted, we are concerned this could set a precedent that would allow for similar developments within the
neighborhood in the future.
The area has already changed considerably since 2008. There are more businesses in the area and we are seeing
significantly more traffic, especially on 40th Street. This is to be expected due to the desirability of the area. However,
we would like the character of our neighborhood to be maintained. The proposed development clearly changes the
density and I see no advantage other than allowing the developer to make a bigger profit (and maybe more property tax
income for the County).
I urge the City to deny this request and maintain the three lots as single family homes. The developer can build three
new homes and make a good profit.
If you have questions, please feel free to contact me.
Josiah Roberts
602‐690‐6428
3917 E Heatherbrae Drive
Page 509
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-60-21-6
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Request From R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) and R-3
(Multifamily Residence District)
Request To R-3 (Multifamily Residence District)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of
40th Street and Monterosa Street
VPC Recommendation Approval per the staff recommendation with a
modification
VPC Vote 15-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Ms. Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including the location,
current and surrounding zoning, and General Plan Land Use Map designation. She
explained that the request covers three current residential lots, two of which are already
zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District). The request is to rezone one lot that is
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District) to the same R-3 zoning as the other two
lots. At staff’s request, the applicant agreed to include all three lots to facilitate
stipulating the entire site for improvements. She then presented the proposed site plan
and elevations, noting the compatibility in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood. She stated that the proposal will provide a transition from the commercial
uses to the south to the residential neighborhood to the north. Ms. Mastikhina then
presented the staff recommendation for approval, along with the recommended
stipulations.
Mr. Brian Greathouse, representative with Burch & Crachiollo, provided an overview of
the request, noting that they had agreed to include all three lots in the rezoning request
to ensure transparency with the community as well as to allow staff to stipulate
improvements such as landscaping and walkability throughout the entire site. He
explained that the two lots zoned for multifamily are currently vacant and the previous
buildings were demolished approximately five years ago. He then noted that the existing
single-family residence on the third lot is uninhabitable and in no condition to sell or
rent. He then explained that this site is in an interesting location, with a dentist office to
the east and restaurants and a parking lot to the south, and that the believes the
proposed townhomes are an appropriate transitional land use. He stated that the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 510
building elevations were designed by local architect Jason Comer, and that the interior
will be designed by Joel Contreras, both of whom have designed high quality
development projects throughout the city. He then presented conceptual renderings of
the project, noting the unique architecture and walkability and pedestrian-friendliness.
He addressed some community concerns that arose through the process. The first was
regarding on-street parking, to which he replied that each unit will have two designated
parking spaces in a carport in the rear of the site, so residents will not have a need to
park on Monterosa Avenue. The second concern was that they were proposing to
rezone all three lots to allows townhomes, to which he clarified that only one lot will
effectively be rezoned, while the other two already have the multifamily designation. He
then presented the proposed floor plans of the units and asked if the committee had any
questions.
Dawn Augusta asked if there had been any consideration or traffic study of the current
access conditions to the rear alley, noting that northbound turns would exacerbate
already problematic traffic patterns. Greathouse replied that due to the small increase
in permissible units, a traffic study was not conducted nor was it required by the city.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Geoff Mathieux, neighborhood resident, expressed his support for the proposal, stating
that the high-quality design and pedestrian-friendliness will add value to the
neighborhood and that it will provide a buffer from the parking areas to the south.
William Jay Lichtsinn stated that the vacant lots have been used for overflow parking
for the adjacent businesses and expressed concern that this overflow parking will now
take place along the street, inconveniencing the neighborhood. Greathouse replied that
the property owner has worked with the Police Department to address the illegal parking
and homeless encampments for months, and that there is already overflow parking on
the street from the dentist and restaurants. He stated that the townhomes will not
change this condition, as they cannot monitor public streets where there are no parking
restrictions.
Chair Swart stated that there was a case on 40th Street and Indian School Road with
the same concern, which is that the expansion of the business there would exacerbate
on-street parking. However, those property owners did not have any control over public
streets, much like in this case. He stated that this will force the city to address long-
overdue issues with on-street parking issues.
MOTION:
Vic Grace made a motion to approve this case per the staff recommendation. Chair
Swart requested an amendment to the motion to include a modification to increase the
required number of bicycle parking space from two to eight. Grace accepted the
amendment. Ashley Nye seconded the motion.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
Chair Swart offered to help the applicant with parking and safety enforcement in the
area, as he is very involved with these matters.
Augusta expressed her support for the multifamily rezoning but reiterated her concern
with northbound traffic on 40th Street attempting to turn left into the alley where the
parking is located, as the turn area coincides with the left turn lane onto Indian School
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 511
Road. She asked that the applicant look into a different parking arrangement, as this will
create problems. Chair Swart asked staff if the Street Transportation Department had
provided feedback on this case. Mastikhina stated that the only comment from that
department was regarding paving of the alley.
Christina Eichelkraut asked that the applicant address a question brought up by
resident Pam MacMillan in her letters to the city regarding if there will be individual back
yards in the rear that residents can spend time in, instead of being on their street-facing
balconies. The resident’s concern was privacy intrusion into the single-family homes to
the north of the project. She then stated that she has no problems with the proposal, but
simply wanted to ensure that all community questions and concerns were addressed.
Greathouse stated that the rear yard will be commonly held and will have seating and
barbecue areas for resident use.
Nye seconded committee member Augusta’s concern regarding the northbound turn
into the alley and asked that the applicant work with the Street Transportation
Department to address this concern and come up with an alternative access solution.
She also mentioned that there is an avid biking community in this area and that
residents will likely receive guests who bike to the property. She suggested that
additional bicycle parking spaces be provided in the common area to accommodate
this. Greathouse stated that his client is happy to add more bicycle parking spaces.
Grace stated that, based on Google aerials, it looks like the previous structures on the
site had a carport along the alley, so parking in that area was present before.
VOTE:
15-0; Motion passes with committee members Swart, Fischbach, Abbott, Augusta,
Bayless, Czerwinski, Eichelkraut, Grace, McKee, Miller, Nye, O’Malley, Paceley, Rush,
and Sharaby in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
The Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommended approval of the case
per the staff recommendation with a modification to Stipulation No. 7 to increase the
number of bicycle parking spaces provided.
The following stipulations incorporate the changes approved by the Camelback East
Village Planning Committee on December 7, 2021 with modifications in bold text:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly
identifiable as the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the
south side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 512
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-
inch caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Five, five-gallon shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall
provide minimum 75 percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east
property lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade
trees placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the
parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning
and Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees
and structural shade.
7. A minimum of two EIGHT bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted
U and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of
the pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2,
2021. These parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section
1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Artistic racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix
Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect
building entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for
the alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final
site plan approval.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 513
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according
to the templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved
by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 514
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-60-21-6
Location: Approximately 65 feet west of the southwest corner of 40th Street and
Monterosa Street
From: R1-6 and R-3
To: R-3
Acreage: 0.63
Proposal: Multifamily Residential
Applicant: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
Owner: Chapter 2, LLC; c/o Geoff Edlund
Representative: Brian Greathouse, Burch & Cracchiolo, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 12/7/2021 Approval, per staff recommendation with a modified stipulation.
Vote: 15-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Camelback East Village Planning
Committee recommendation with an additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Mangum made a MOTION to approve Z-60-21-6, per the
Camelback East Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as
read into the record.
Maker: Mangum
Second: Johnson
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed development is compatible in scale and character with the surrounding
neighborhood and features clearly identifiable pedestrian entrances and building height
consistent with single-family development.
2. The proposed development will provide a buffer and an appropriate transition from the
commercial uses to the south and east to the site, from the existing single-family
neighborhood.
3. As stipulated, the proposed development will provide ample tree shade throughout the
site and along the public sidewalk along Monterosa Street.
Page 515
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the elevations date stamped
September 2, 2021, with specific regard to the following and as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. There shall be a maximum building height of 2 stories and 30 feet.
b. Individual entryways on front (Monterosa) elevation shall be clearly identifiable as
the primary pedestrian access for residential units.
2. The developer shall construct a minimum 5-foot-wide public sidewalk along the south
side of Monterosa Street, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The primary entryways into residential units shall face Monterosa Street. These
entryways shall incorporate a patio or seating court area, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
4. The required landscape setback along Monterosa Street shall include minimum 3-inch
caliper single-trunk large canopy shade trees planted 20 feet on center or in equivalent
groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Five, five-gallon
shrubs per tree, and additional shrubs or live groundcover shall provide minimum 75
percent live cover at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be required along the west and east property
lines. These areas shall be planted with minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees placed 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
6. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch caliper
drought-tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be dispersed throughout the parking
area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as approved by Planning and
Development Department. Shade may be provided with a combination of trees and
structural shade.
7. A minimum of two EIGHT bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks located on the southwest portion of the site, to the north of the
pedestrian entry gate depicted on the site plan date stamped September 2, 2021. These
parking spaces shall be installed per the requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Artistic
racks shall adhere to the City of Phoenix Preferred Designs in Appendix K of the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan.
8. Clearly defined, accessible pedestrian pathways shall be provided to connect building
entrances and public sidewalks, using the most direct route for pedestrians, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.
9. Where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, they shall be constructed of decorative
pavers, stamped, or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that visually
contrast with the adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
Page 516
10. The developer shall provide 20 feet of paving per the local street requirements for the
alley from the western boundary of the property to 40th Street, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
11. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping, and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department. All
improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
12. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix for
the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City Attorney prior to final site plan
approval.
13. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.ௗௗ
14. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and operational
characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of the property.
The form and content of such documents shall be according to the templates and
instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the developer
shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot radius of the
discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the Archaeology Office to
properly assess the materials.
16. PRIOR TO PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE LANDOWNER SHALL
EXECUTE A PROPOSITION 207 WAIVER OF CLAIMS FORM. THE WAIVER SHALL
BE RECORDED WITH THE MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDER'S OFFICE AND
DELIVERED TO THE CITY TO BE INCLUDED IN THE REZONING APPLICATION
FILE FOR RECORD.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 517
Attachment E
170-32-048 170-32-047 170-32-046 170-32-045 170-32-044 170-32-043 171-26-001 171-26-0 02
170-32-064170-32-049
171-26-003
-0
-26
170-32-065 170-32-066 170-32-067 170-32-068 170-32-069 170-32-070 171-26-0 14
171-26-0 13
DEVONSHIRE AVE
170-32-126 170-32-125 170-32-124 170-32-123 170-32-122 170-32-121 170-32-120 170-32-119
171-26-0 15
171-26-0 16
171-26-0 17
170-32-129 170-32-1 30 170-32-131 170-32-132 170-32-133 170-32-134 170-32-135 170-32-136
MONTEROSA ST
170-32-097 170-32-096 170-32-0 94
170-32-0 95 170-32-093 170-32-092 170-32-091 170-32-090 170-32-089 40TH ST
171-26-061G
170-32-101
170-32-0 99C
170-32-0 99D
170-32-1 00B
170-32-099B
171-26-0 61B
INDIAN SCHOOL RD
Legend
127-18-100D
Zoning Petition Area
127-17-108
Proposed Amendment Area
127-18-143 127-18-100C
127-17-1 03
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 8/17 = 47%
Lots/Tracts/Condos
% Area = 0.86ac./4.14ac. = 21%
Signed Petition 3/4 VOTE REQUIRED
127-17-107
Petition Verification Map
0 37.5 75 Feet Page 518 for Z-60-21-6
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 1/13/2022
Page 519
Page 520
Page 521
Page 522
Page 523
Page 524
Attachment F
Sofia Mastikhina
From: geoff mathieux
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 10:52 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21 Registration to Speak at CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE on
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m
Hello Sofia,
I am writing to register to speak at the at CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE PLANNING COMMITTEE meeting on
Tuesday, December 7, 2021, at 6:00 p.m. Please register me.
Also I would like to submit the following comment:
I am a neighbor to the property 65'+‐West of the SWC of 40th St. & Monterosa St. I support this project as it is
a minimal change (only changing one of three zones to enable a high quality housing development which fits
nicely in the neighborhood. It will be tasteful and add value to the neighborhood. Please approve the
Rezoning application for the proposed townhomes "Monterosa Townhomes".The proposal is to rezone the
property from R1‐6 (one lot) and R‐3 (two lots) to R‐3 for all three.
Thank you,
Geoffroy
Geoffroy Mathieux cell (415) 420‐2222
Page 525
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Christopher Alt
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 10:33 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: agenda item #6, Z-60-21-6
Hi Sofia,
I am writing to let you know that I support the request to rezone to R-3 provided the applicant addresses traffic concerns. Specifically,
the traffic issues where the alley meets 40th Street. Vehicles very often get backed up at Indian School and it is already challenging for
commercial traffic to access/exit from the commercial development there. With the alley entrance right there next to the commercial
entrance it is likely to cause additional problems, likely an unsafe condition.
CHRISTOPHER ALT
AIA
PRINCIPAL
Office: 602 251 3800
Mobile: 602 283 6421
alt@studioma.com
studioma.com
Page 526
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Greg Bruns
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 11:53 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Support for item #6, Z-60-21-6
Hi Sofia –
I am unable to speak at the meeting tonight for the rezone request for 40th Street & Monterosa, but I hope you are able
to consider my support for this project – I know I’m late but I hope you’re able to fit this in.
My property is at 3850 E Indian School Road – less than a block away – and I have lived and worked in the area for 18
years. Through all of the changes over the last two decades, I’ve never had a real estate professional or developer
approach me and ask what I thought about their impending purchase/project. I was pleased to see Geoff Edlund do so
with his proposal for Monterosa Homes. I remember how that dilapidated property looked for years and the type of
people it drew… and now it’s an unattractive vacant lot, so I welcome a smart design from a responsible person who has
a stake in the game (he plans to purchase a unit for himself to live there).
I have reviewed the drawings and plans and spoken with Mr. Edlund at length about his intentions and ideas for the area
and his property. I like that the project design takes into account the surrounding community and overall desert
environment. It includes grass, trees and a keen curb appeal. It doesn’t add to street parking, which is an issue that
concerns the neighborhood, and it helps with the larger issue we have in the Valley with sprawl. As we build more multi‐
family housing in this central Phoenix area, we encourage more pedestrian and bicycle traffic – which has increased
tremendously in the last three years. To the west and north (in the 3600‐3800 block between Indian School and
Campbell Ave), there are many nice examples of multi‐family housing lots that are on the street with single‐family home
lots. Putting multi‐ and single‐family lots next to one another doesn’t allow for a completely uniform design. However,
that doesn’t currently exist on Monterosa on the southeast side… with a large office lot and multi‐family zoning on the
southeast side, there’s also a large billboard and huge retail complex just to the south.
If we have a responsible builder who wants to create something nice that helps our community and that person is willing
to work with the neighbors to consider ideas, changes and improvements, I support it.
I understand that we are dealing with rezoning ONE LOT here to add space for his construction of multi‐family housing
and by rezoning that lot we are deciding if this project is going to be five units or eight. I think the best plan here is to
grant the request to allow R‐3 multi‐housing on the one lot to the west on Monterosa, so Mr. Edlund can build his 8
units.
Thank you –
Greg Bruns
3850 E Indian School Rd
Phoenix AZ 85018
602‐840‐6379 (o)
602‐319‐5930 (c)
Greg A Bruns
Publisher
Arcadia News
Page 527
Racelle Escolar
From: geoff mathieux
Sent: Sunday, January 2, 2022 6:23 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No. Z-60-21-6 Comment and Registration to Speak on Thursday, January 6th, 2022, at 6:00 p.m ITEM #17
Case No. Z‐60‐21‐6 ITEM #17 Comment and Registration to Speak on Thursday, January 6th, 2022, at 6:00 p.m.
Dear Planning Commission,
I am sending a comment and writing to register to speak at the Planning Commission Hearing on Thursday,
January 6th, 2021, at 6:00 p.m.
Below is my comment:
I am a neighbor to the property 65'+‐West of the SWC of 40th St. & Monterosa St. I support this project as it is
a minimal change (only changing one of three zones to enable a high quality housing development which fits
nicely in the neighborhood). It will be tasteful with trees in front and parking in the back, and will add value to
the neighborhood. Please approve the Rezoning application for one of three of the proposed townhomes
"Monterosa Townhomes" (only one of three actually needs a zoning change).The proposal is to rezone the
property from R1‐6 (one lot) and R‐3 (two lots) to R‐3 for all three.
Thank you,
Geoffroy
Geoffroy Mathieux cell (415) 420‐2222
Page1 528
Attachment G
Sofia Mastikhina
From: PAM MACMILLAN
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 1:14 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: rhorowitz@bcattorneys.com; bgreathouse@bcattorneys.com
Subject: Rezoning application for 40th and Monterosa (Z-60-21-6)
To: Sofia Mastikhina, Ricki Horowitz, Brian Greathouse
From: Pam MacMillan, owner of 4013 E. Devonshire
Re: rezoning R1-6 to townhouses
I am reaching out to let you that we vigorously oppose the rezoning of residential lots on Monterosa street so
that townhouses can be built.
I strongly oppose this rezoning for several reasons:
1. This area for 50+ years has been single family homes. A few condo/townhouses have been built on 40th
street in the past 10 years but none have actually been on one of the side/residential streets. These multiple
housing projects were built at the strong opposition of the neighborhood. Two story and taller buildings ruin
other neighbors views, increase people density and car density thus adding to trash, noise pollution, traffic
congestion and putting additional pressure on the area to absorb more and more people, cars into schools,
restaurants and other retail establishments.
2. There is a reason the area is zoned R1-6 and that because it is a residential neighborhood. It is full of single
family homes occupied by families. Townhouses were never intended to be built in these neighborhoods. It will
hurt the property values of the neighbors in the surrounding area. They bought their single family homes based
on the knowledge that the neighborhood was zoned R1-6.
3. This is not affordable housing which is what is needed (on Indian School and other major streets). The
Citrine, the other condos on 40th street as well as the soon to be finished Grove (C.back/44th) are all high end
rentals housing thousands of additional people and cars. The intersection at Camelback and 44th St is already
listed as the “top 10 most dangerous intersections in Phoenix.” The intersection at Indian School and 40th St is
also very dangerous - especially during pick up and drop off times at Christ Lutheran School.
Please let this residential neighborhood remain just that - single family homes filled with people living there for
many years, typically from recently married to newly retired, not people who move in to a rental on a temporary
basis. They never bother to get to know their neighbors or care about the neighborhood because in a year or
so they will move on - probably into a residential community without townhomes.
Here are some of my questions:
1. From the architectural drawing it does not appear that there are garages. Is that true? If so, that means a lot
of parked cars on the street. Also it appears from the drawing that the balconies are facing north and looking
directly into the homes of the people on the north side of Monterosa.
2. What in the back yards? Pool? Grass? Desert? Nothing? From the drawing, it looks like the balconies is
where people will sit. What about noise? Privacy for the neighbors?
In conclusion, I strongly urge the Phoenix Planning Commission to reject this rezoning request.
Thank you for reading and taking into consideration my concerns.
Pam MacMillan
Page 529
Sofia Mastikhina
From: elizabeth lennon
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 4:42 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning
I oppose rezoning from residential to allow 8 townhouses to be built in the 40th street Monterosa intersection.
The neighborhood was never intended to have townhomes and the traffic is already very dangerous at Indian
School and 40th street.
I appreciate your understanding as an active member of this great community filled with young families with
children.
Regards,
Elizabeth Lennon
5905 e calle tubería
Phoenix, az 85018
Page 530
Sofia Mastikhina
From: Pamela MacMillan
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2021 2:44 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Rezoning
Hi Sofia: This is Pam MacMillan again.
I am sure in the big scheme of things my comments won’t make a bit of difference but I would like to share my thoughts
regarding re‐zoning in general with the planning committee.
It is a very slippery slope once you start to rezone neighborhoods. Arcadia is the perfect case study for this. In the last 10
years, Arcadia has gone from single story ranch homes on big irrigated lots to mansions that are built from lot line to lot
line. Most new builds are now two story homes that ruin the view of Camelback Mountain for others in the
neighborhood. There is barely a citrus tree left and most new comers have no idea that Arcadia was once a citrus grove.
I understand all the reasons why this has happened but it has ruined the charm and uniqueness of Arcadia. Once you
started to allow rezoning in Arcadia, the requests came pouring in: larger homes, two story homes, splitting of lots to
built two homes…the list goes on and on. Also rezoning allowed high‐rise apartments, condos, townhomes and soon to
be hotel on the all the major streets surrounding Arcadia.
Let's be honest, the structures that were on Monterosa at 40th street were built to looked like single family ranch style
homes. Yes, they were old and yes they were multi housing units and yes they probably needed to be replaced after the
fire but the modern two story all glass townhouses that will be built don’t exactly fit in the neighborhood AND DO
increase the number of cars, people on Monterosa. Also, the reason the single family home needs to be torn down is
because the current owner choose not to maintain the property.
I completely agree with Ms Augusta that the traffic department needs to get involved. I use the intersection at 40th and
Indian School almost every day. That corner has changed significantly since 2015. There is alway lots of trafffic coming
and going from the restaurants, yoga studio and other retail stores on the northwest corner. It is incredibly dangerous to
attempt to turn left (north) out of the strip center onto 40th street. The plan to use the alley as a driveway to get to the
carports for the townhouses has not been well thought out and is dangerous.
I have attached photos of the original structures and the single family home. I realize the townhouses will be built. The
purpose of this letter is to ask the planning committee to be careful of allowing so much rezoning. It changes the
character, purpose of neighborhood zoned for single family homes.
Page 531
Page 532
Page 533
Racelle Escolar
From: Dana Zuidema
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:13 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case no z-60-21-6
Hello,
I am writing this email to voice my opposition of case no z‐60‐21‐6. I live in the neighborhood and do not support the
rezoning of this single family lot to multi family housing.
Dana Zuidema
3919 E. Devonshire ave
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page1 534
Racelle Escolar
From: Gayle Milling
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:41 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6
This is a note to state that my husband and I, Gayle and Richard Milling of 3931 E Heatherbrae Drive strongly oppose the
rezoning of Monterosa from single family home lots to multi‐family homes. There is a significant risk to increased traffic
on 40th street which is already extremely busy and hazardous for kids and families as well as decreased character of the
singe‐family home neighborhood we all love.
We beg you to not move forward with this.
Regards ‐
Richard and Gayle Milling
Sent from my iPad
Page1 535
Racelle Escolar
From: Connie Bennett
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 1:25 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case No-60-21-6
Good afternoon! I wish to voice my opposition on rezoning Monterosa Street. Not only will building the “eight” two‐
story townhouses on a “single family home lot“ decrease the character of our single family home neighborhood, but it
would increase dangerous traffic patterns & cause more excess parking on Monterosa Street which is already an issue as
the lot in question is bordered by commercial properties & overflow parking comes onto our street as it is. Please
consider the safety of our children & grandchildren in forming your decision. Thank you! Connie Bennett at 3926 E
Monterosa St.
Page1 536
From: just me
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 5:38 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-60-21-6 opposition
Application #: Z-60-21-6
From:R1-6 andR-3
To:R-3
40th Street and Monterosa Street
Proposal:Multifamily Residential
mailto:pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov
January 5, 2022
Dear Planning Commission.
My apologies that this letter/email is being written and submitted on January 5. I hope you will still consider it.
I'm writing to express my very strong opposition to allowing more housing units on the lot on Monterosa Street just west of
40th Street. Please do not allow this.
The planning commission designs and the zoning requirements were set a long time ago with the intent of keeping the
neighborhood nice. Please don't allow this change as there is no need to do so – other than more profit for the
builder/developer and that is not and never should be a valid reason.
I have lived in this neighborhood many years. It is in one of the hottest zip codes right now and is shockingly popular to
builders and flippers. Builders and flippers who come in to make as much money as they can by cramming more
buildings/square footage into the lots and more bodies in those buildings and more cars on the streets, with zero regard to
what happens to the neighborhood and the traffic around it once they've made their profits and left – aesthetics, number
of people, lack of parking, noise, trash, etc., etc.
On this townhouse development, it says two parking spaces per unit, but will there be a limit of two cars per unit? And
where will their visitors park? More residents means more cars, whether they live there or are visiting. There is not any
more room on Monterosa Street for more cars to park. Entering or leaving Monterosa at 40th Street at certain times of the
day is very challenging because of the number of cars parked there.
We don't need more people and more traffic to clog up our once lovely, friendly neighborhood. We don't need any more
two-story mega homes – or townhouses in this case - going up in our neighborhood. We are losing the character of our
neighborhood. Cramming more in is not the answer.
Please have consideration for those of us who have lived in and continue to live in this neighborhood.
I can't help but emphasize the cars/parking/traffic issue, but my opposition is more than that, as I've stated above.
None of the neighbors I've spoken to are in favor of this change. I do not know how many are writing or speaking out
about this to the Commission. Sadly, as you well know, getting people participate and be involved is quite a challenge.
Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my comments.
P. Lyons
3828 E. Monterosa St.
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Page1 537
Racelle Escolar
From: Rosemary Scott
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 6:43 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Case number Z 60 21 6
To the zoning committee: it's time to vote no to converting a single family home lot to multifamily in a residential
neighborhood. whoever this developer is was not clear when initially requesting a change to zoning, indicating they
wanted the zoning change to a property close to 40th St. It's on a residential street and it is a single family home. It will
increase traffic, crowd an already crowded intersection, bring down home values, and create ? rentals we do not need.
It is bad enough single family homes are converted to hotels or you may prefer to call them Airbnbs. We have lived for
40 years in this neighborhood. We have driven out drug dealers and prostitutes. We have supported Creighton School
district and Phoenix Union High School District not just by paying taxes but sending our children to these inner city
schools. Does this developer care about these schools? We are tired of fighting to keep this a residential neighborhood
so please help us and stop these greedy developers. Sincerely Rosemary Scott and Alan C. Gee
Page1 538
Racelle Escolar
From: Peter Eastburn
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 9:09 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: pmathes_222@yahoo.com
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6
To whom it may concern,
The biggest concern is traffic at the corner of Monterosa and 40th street. It already backs up past Devonshire on 40th
street most evenings and always on Friday and sometimes on Saturday. The street parking on Monterosa in front of the
proposed apartment project will be devastating to the neighborhood, this is a signal family neighborhood not an
opportunity zone for someone to make a buck off of multifamily residences.
Regards,
Peter S. Eastburn
Page1 539
Racelle Escolar
From: Tristahn Schaub
Sent: Wednesday, January 5, 2022 10:23 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Case No Z-60-21-6 Opposition
To whom it may concern ‐ I am writing in opposition to the proposed multifamily development at Monterosa and 40th
St. Since the mortuary was sold, that corner has become overstuffed and commercially exploited. Parking has been
insane and the businesses are now generating nighttime noise complaints from nearby residences. This proposed
devlopment seems to add to the problems already taking place on that corner.
At first glance of the project I thought, “Who on earth would want to buy one of these townhomes stacked on top of
one anotyher and shoved right up against that commercial nuisance?” and simply dismissed the appolication. However,
haveing heard from local residents, I feel compelled to spoeak out more formally, not for its gross exploitation of the
land and density but for the impacts to the community. I am 100% in agreement with the following concerns which
have been raised:
Loss of Property Value: Multifamily homes are known to drive down the value surrounding homes. We do not want our
property value driven down due to this development.
Loss of Character of Single‐Family Home Neighborhood: If this rezone is approved, it may set precedent allowing other
similar rezoning requests to be approved. This means our community could shift from single‐family homes to more
multifamily homes, which will impact the character of our neighborhood. The rezone would also allow for rentals.
Creation of Dangerous Traffic Patterns: Four driveways exist in total on the east and west side of 40th Street between
Indian School and Monterosa Street. Adding eight additional units in this space will create a higher traffic volume, which
will make an already dangerous intersection more dangerous.
Creation of Excess Parking on Monterosa Street: Excess parking is already an issue on Monterosa Street due to the
development on Indian School and 40th Street. The spillover parking on the narrow Monterosa Street creates danger for
pedestrians. Eight additional units will create more parking issues and danger
My hope is that you restore sanity to how this parcel is being zoned and managed by denying this development request.
Thank you,
Tristahn Schaub
Page1 540
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-DV-2-
21-1 - Approximately 270 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road (Resolution 21989)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-48-21-1 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-48-21-1.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Commercial,
and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Sept. 9,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 9,
2021 and recommended approval, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road.
Council District: 1
Parcel Addresses: 25255 N. 19th Ave.; and 1734, 1737, 1745, 1748 W. Desert Hollow
Drive.
Page 541
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 542
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-DV-2-21-1, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DV-2-21-1. The 13.48 acres
of property located approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th
Avenue and Happy Valley Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per
acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 543
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February
2022.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
Page 544
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
PL:amt:____v1 (CM __) (Item _) 2/2/2022
Page 545
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
December 7, 2021
Application: GPA-DV-2-21-1
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner
of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41
acres), Commercial (4.97 acres), Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce Park) (4.10 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (13.48
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential uses
Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: December 9, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of 15+ dwelling units per
acre provides a transition in scale and intensity from development on the west
side of 19th Avenue.
2) The Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre land use designation will permit
residential development that will add to the diverse housing options in the area
within close proximity to a designated employment center.
Page 546
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 2
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-48-21-1, contains development standards that
will promote development at an appropriate scale for the general area.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 270
feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road. The eastern portion of
the site is occupied by four single-family homes.
The western portion of the site, abutting 19th
Avenue, is currently vacant. The companion
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 is a request to
allow PUD zoning for multifamily residential uses
on the entirety of the site.
Currently, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation on the site is Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed
Use (Commercial / Commerce Park). The
eastern portion of the site is currently in
unincorporated Maricopa County. The
commercial designation on the site is depicted in
red on the graphic to the right. The existing
residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
designation is depicted in yellow. An annexation
application for that portion of the site is actively
being pursued by the applicant.
The site is located near two major arterials
streets. An existing bus stop and bus stop pad is
located on the east side of 19th Avenue just to
the south of the site. A City of Phoenix
Existing General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of
designated bike lane is also located along 19th Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Avenue.
The area surrounding the subject site has seen a significant amount of investment in the
last 10 years. This investment has positioned the area between Jomax Road
and north of the Deer Valley Airport as a corridor for mixed-use, industrial,
commerce park and multifamily residential development.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
There are four existing single-family residential homes on the eastern portion of the site,
pending annexation into the City of Phoenix limits. The western portion of the site is
comprised of vacant land that is zoned C-O/M-O (Commercial Office, Major Office
Page 547
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 3
District). The western portion of the site is comprised of four residential lots. The table
below provides a summary of the surrounding General Plan (GP) Land Use Map
designations, existing land uses and zoning.
Location GP Land Use Existing Land Uses Zoning
North Residential 3.5 to 5 Vacant RU-43 (Maricopa
dwelling units per acre County)
South Mixed Use Convenience store, C-2 and C-2 SP
(Commercial, commercial retail, and self-
Commerce/Business service storage facility
Park)
East Residential 3.5 to 5 Vacant and self-service S-1 and C-2 SP
dwelling units per acre storage facility
and Mixed Use
(Commercial /
Commerce Park)
West Residential 3.5 to 5 Multifamily residential, APS PUD and RU-43
(abutting and dwelling units per acre electrical substation, and (County)
across 19th and Mixed Use vacant
Avenue) (Commercial,
Commerce/Business
Park, Residential 5-10
dwelling units per
acre, Residential 10-
15 dwelling units per
acre, and Residential
15+ dwelling units per
acre)
Surrounding Land Use Designations, Land Use and Zoning
The site is located within close proximity of the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
designated North Black Canyon and Phoenix
designated Deer Valley employment centers. This
proposal will provide new housing opportunities for
existing residents and the workforce in these two
major employment centers.
The request facilitates additional residential options
adjacent to major arterial streets and in close
proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley
Road corridor. The proposed development is sensitive
to surrounding residential and commercial
development, thereby warranting the reasonable
Major Employment Center Map, Source:
Page 548
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 4
levels of height and density proposed between the more intense Norterra development
to the west and the more rural residential to the east.
A mix of housing types are encouraged in and around employment centers and
commercial corridors. The North Black Canyon employment center profile provided by
the City of Phoenix Community and Economic Development Department identifies this
corridor as having a mix of workers in the current
labor pool that mirrors the metro area with a solid base of management as well as sales,
clerical and administrative personnel. Workers in the North Black Canyon area are also
well educated. Providing additional residential options in close proximity to the nearby
office spaces in this rapidly growing area will add to the sustainability of the established
employment center and the Norterra area overall.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PPRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development
and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
This development proposal will provide a transition in land use that will maintain
an appropriate character and scale compatible with existing entitlements and
surrounding land uses in the general area. This proposal is appropriately located
along an arterial street, near a major street intersection, and close proximity to
employment centers. Further, the opportunity to add additional housing choices
is consistent with the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan.
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The request and concurrent rezoning case Z-48-21-1 proposes multifamily
development adjacent to an arterial street and within close proximity to a major
street intersection with existing or planned bus service and designated bicycle
lanes. The concentration of people within or adjacent to an employment center
and near employment uses and transportation corridors promotes the
sustainability of nearby commercial uses.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
The request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial
Page 549
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 5
streets, in close proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley Road corridor
as well as in close proximity to two major employment centers.
.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DV-2-21-1 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and polices of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location along a
major arterial and nearby employment centers.
Currently, there is a transition along the Norterra community towards mix of housing
types and commercial services. Recent development suggests the area around Norterra
is evolving to a mixture of housing choices and commercial uses. The proposed land
use map change will serve as a continuation of the proposed land use designations to
the south, west, and north of the subject site.
This proposed Minor General Plan Amendment request is consistent with surrounding
land use transitions and General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area.
Writer
David Simmons
December 07, 2021
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 550
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-2-21-1_BW ACRES: 13.48 +/-
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Toll Brothers
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 4.41 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 4.97 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) ( 4.10 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commercial Park/ 19TH AVE
Residential 5 to 10/10 to 15/15+)
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 13.48 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
19TH AVE
Residential 15+ du/acre
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Page 551
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-2-21-1 ACRES: 13.48 +/-
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Toll Brothers
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 4.41 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 4.97 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) ( 4.10 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
19TH AVE
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/
Business Park/Residential 5 to 10/10 to 15/15+)
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 13.48 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/ac
19TH AVE
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Page 552
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-2-21-1 (INFO ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41 acres),
Commercial (4.97acres), and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce Park) (4.10 acres) to
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation NA
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak
7 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided a detailed
overview of both the General Plan Amendment (GPA) request and the Rezoning
request. He started by highlighting the quality of the Toll Brothers brand and
quality of their products. He continued by highlighting the reasoning behind Toll
Brothers decision to move forward with the subject site. He stated that the area is
close to residential amenities, employment hubs and transportation corridors. He
also shared that this area is growing rapidly and there is a need for alternative
forms of housing in the area. Mr. Wood covered the request for the GPA and
provided reasoning behind the need for the map change to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. He went on to address community concerns that he was
aware of to include a stepback approach to building elevations along the northern
and eastern property boundaries and enhanced landscaping to act as a buffer to
nearby large lot residential. He also highlighted an open fencing concept that
would make the site look more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property
owners, giving them the benefit of the enhanced landscaping proposed. Mr.
Wood went over the site plan in detail highlighting that this proposal will be a
gated, luxury multifamily development with resort like interior courtyard
amenities. He highlighted that any noise generated from residents of the
community would be contained within the interior courtyards of the development,
completely surrounded by living units. Mr. Wood went o er the development
standards table. Further, Mr. Wood showcased the conceptual rendering of the
elevations, site plan and landscape plans depicting a high quality design that Toll
Brothers is known for.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 553
Mr. Ozzie Virgil left the meeting at approximately 7:15, bringing quorum to 8.
Public Comment:
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing directly north of the subject site, shared
concerns about increased traffic, increase in population density, crime, and the
character of the rural area changing.
Ms. Michelle Gardner, VPC member, asked Ms. Crawford what her greatest
concerns are.
Ms. Crawford shared that her greatest concerns are the proposed height and
traffic.
Ms. Diane Habener, residing east of the subject site, has concerns with the
proposed height and recommended a maximum of two-stories.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Ms. Habener if she resides within the
County Island.
Ms. Habener shared that she does reside within the County Island boundaries.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing north of the subject site, shared concerns about
loosing a perceived buffer zone between Norterra and the County Island, which
is currently zoned commercial. She shared that she and her neighbors were
expecting a single story commercial office use being built on this site. She
shared concerns related to proposed height, increase in traffic, and stated that
this PUD request is not wanted.
Mr. Clif Freedman, residing at 1716 Buckhorn Trail, shared that he is supportive
of the request. He shared that the concerns about proposed height are irrelevant
due to the existing entitlement son the site allowing up to four-stories. He shared
that he supports the project, supports Toll Brothers and highlighted that Toll
Brothers builds high end projects. Further, he shared that tenants of a high end
development such as this would not result in an increase in crime.
Mr. James Whatley shared that he is opposed to the request. He has concerns
about the character of the area changing and increase in population. He asked
that the zoning stay as it currently is.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood spoke to the concerns and shared that commercial zoning traffic
counts are much higher than residential uses. He also highlighted that the
majority of units are I bedroom, which may result in 2-3 people maximum
residing in a single unit. He introduced Ms. Dawn Cartier with Civ Tech, a traffic
engineering company, to speak on traffic volumes.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 554
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineers, went over the traffic report and
highlighted the anticipated number of trips per day that would be generated from
such a use, which is much lower than a commercial center would generate.
Mr. Wood offered a rebuttal to the height concerns and highlighted the
stepbacks proposed and the enhanced landscaping that acts as an aesthetically
pleasing buffer between exiting large lot residential uses to the north and to the
east.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Mr. Wood if existing single-family homes
have already sold to Toll Brothers. He also wanted to confirm is self-storage was
directly adjacent.
Mr. Wood confirmed that there are property owners that have already sold to the
developer and that there is a self-storage use adjacent to the subject site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 555
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Date of VPC Meeting December 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41 acres),
Commercial (4.97 acres), Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park) (4.10 acres) to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre (13.48 acres)
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation Approval
Vote 10-0-1; motion to approve passed, with Committee
Members Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis,
Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis, Shipman and
Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Deer
Valley and North Black Canyon Employment Centers, Comprehensive Bicycle
Master plan, Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles,
Zero Waste Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix
Plan. Mr. Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed
stipulations for the case. He also shared that an annexation request for the
eastern portion of the site is running concurrently with the GPA and rezoning
request.
Mr. Nick Wood, representing the applicant, provided a greatly detailed
presentation to include how this proposal is consistent with development trends
int eh surrounding area, the General Plan Land Use Map designation change,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation plans for the site, enhanced landscaping
standards proposed, and an explanation of the approved traffic study showing
how the proposed use will not adversely affect traffic flows int the area. Further,
Mr. Wood elaborated on the high quality architectural embellishment proposed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 556
for the façade, the view fencing, and the proximity to residential as well as the
building height in relation to residential and the more intense Norterra to the
west.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Keith Greenberg asked staff is the annexation request just included this site
or more land area surrounding the site.
Mr. Simmons, staff, hared that the annexation request is for the four residential
lots that make up the easter portion of the subject site. No other land area
surrounding the site is included int eh annexation request.
Mr. Greenberg inquired as to where ingress and egress was gong to occur on
the site.
Mr. Wood shared that the site plan configuration was updated due to Street
comments that Desert Hollow Drive was going to be improved, resulting in an
ingress/egress point there as well as an ingress/egress point off of 19th Avenue.
Further, he shared that queuing could occur on Desert Hollow Drive during peak
hours and a median will be installed along 19th Avenue, which will act as a traffic
calming feature.
Mr. Greenberg asked how many living units are currently proposed.
Mr. Wood shared that a maximum of 470 units are proposed.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo shared that there are many other apartment complexes
int eh area and their traffic flows do not have an adverse effect on local traffic
patterns. She shared that a commercial use on this site would generate much
higher traffic volumes.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked if 19th Avenue was going to improved.
Mr. Simmons shared that 19th Avenue will be improved in accordance with the
Cross section A requirements of the Street Classification map.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, explained the traffic study and went into detail
about traffic patters resulting from specific uses.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked what the rental rates were and what is the current
proposed density.
Mr. Wood shared that the density proposed is 34 dwelling units per acre, which
is much lower than a typical multifamily request he represents. Further, he
shared the rental rates will be $1.76 a square foot which translates to $1200.00
for a one bedroom.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked what the original proposed number of units
were prior to making modifications to the site plan as a result of the improvement
requirements for Desert Hollow Lane.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 557
Mr. Wood shared that the original proposed number of units was 500.
Mr. Stuart Kimball applauded the applicant on such a detailed presentation and
their public outreach efforts. He also stated that with the required 19th Avenue
improvement, traffic concerns should be eliminated as lanes will be added.
Public Comment:
Ms. Laura Bates, residing at 1744 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
increased traffic volumes and requested a secondar traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Brian Bates, residing at 1744 W Parsons Rd, shared that he too has traffic
concerns as there are equestrians in the areas well as livestock. He also shared
concerns in regard to loss of property values as a result of this development and
drainage concerns.
Mr. Nick Wood explained that grading and drainage goes through a rigorous
plan review proves to include on-site retention. He shared that, if needed, large
retention compartments will be installed underground o eh subject site.
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing at 1736 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
equestrians in the area, the character of the area changing and devaluations of
properties.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked how many people showed up for the public meetings.
Ms. Crawford stated she believes the numbers were skewed due to COVID and
the meetings taking place over the holiday season.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing at 1717 W. Yearling Rd, shared concerns about
livestock in the area needing large dirt lot, which will create dust and other
nuisances for future residents. Further, she shared concerns about the character
of the area changing.
Ms. Marjorie McCaw, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing.
Mr. Stephen Baker-Murphy, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about
buffers, transitions between uses in the area, character of area changing and
devaluation of existing large lot residential properties due to proposed
development.
Chairman joseph Grossman asked Mr. Baker-Murphy how long he has lived in
his home.
Mr. Baker-Murphy shared that he has resided in his home for four years.
Ms. Kim Cocuzza, residing on 17th Ave, shared concerns about the character of
the area changing and increased traffic.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 558
Ms. Alison McKee, residing at 1219 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing, livestock in the area and traffic volume
increasing.
Mr. Cliff Freedman, residing at 1716 W. Buckhorn Trail, spoke in support of the
proposal. He highlighted that more housing options are needed in this area and
the City of Phoenix is growing rapidly and housing demand cannot keep up.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood stated that housing needs are a result of supply and demand. He
shared that the City of Phoenix is currently the fastest growing city in the nation
attracting over 90k new residents per year. He asked for a recommendation for
approval.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked is this site lies within the boundaries of the Deer Valley
Airport Overlay (DVAO).
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that it does not lie within the DVAO.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked staff to share details about the proposed bungalow
project taking place just to the north of the subject site.
Mr. Simmons shared that the bungalow project is located within the boundaries
of Maricopa County. Therefore, staff does not have purview over that project and
cannot speak to it.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo stated that she is sympathetic and understanding of the
publics concerns. However, growth is inevitable for this area considering the
incredible investments going in all around. She also stated that traffic is not going
to be of grave concern considering the use. Further, she stated that more
housing options are critically needed in this area.
Mr. Mark Davenport left the meeting bringing quorum down to 11.
MOTION:
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo motioned to approve GPA-DV-2-21-1, per the staff
recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lewis seconded the motion.
VOTE: 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee Members
Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis, Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy,
Lewis, Shipman and Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 559
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DV-2-21-1
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce Park)
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal: Multifamily Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 9/9/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 12/9/2021 Approval. Vote: 10-0 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve GPA-DV-2-21-1, per the
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of 15+ dwelling units per acre
provides a transition in scale and intensity from development on the west side of 19th
Avenue.
2. The Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre land use designation will permit residential
development that will add to the diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to a designated employment center.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-48-21-1, contains development standards that will
promote development at an appropriate scale for the general area.
Page 560
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 561
Attachment F
Page 562
Page 563
Page 564
Page 565
Page 566
Page 567
Page 568
Page 569
Page 570
Page 571
Page 572
Page 573
Page 574
Page 575
Page 576
Page 577
Page 578
Page 579
Page 580
Page 581
Page 582
Page 583
Page 584
Page 585
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; pjaramillo@swlaw.com
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I apologize I had a family emergency come up last night so I was not able to attend the call. I would like to show my
support of the Toll Brothers and their proposed project on 19 th ave. I believe Toll brother builds a great product and
confident that it will bring quality living spaces to the area.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Lupo, Matthew J.
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Jaramillo, Paola
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Mr. Lupo,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 and GPA-V-2-21-1. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
support.
The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee (DV VPC) will hear the cases at the December 9, 2021 meeting. I have added
your name to the speaker roster for the December 9, 2021 meeting. Please click on the registration link on the attached
agenda to register for the meeting.
The Planning Commission will hear the case at the January 6, 2022 meeting and the City Council will make a final
decision on February 2, 2022.
The applicants hearing draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-48-21-1)
Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.
Page 586
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:50 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I would like to request a link for case Z-48-21-1, items #3,4 and request to speak in support of Proposed project at 19 th
ave and Happy Valley road.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Page 587
David O Simmons
From: RS B
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers project
Dear Councilmember O’Brien.
My name is Rosa Somohano and I am a resident in North Phoenix
Our area is growing tremendously and I am thankful for the many employers moving into the area. What is needed now
is more housing options. I received a presentation on the proposed Toll Brothers projects to be located at Happy Valley
Rd. and 19thAve and I really like it. It has so many great amenities and most importantly is a higher end development.
This will encourage and promote safety for our area and be attractive to the many employees who are now working in
our area.
I also appreciate that they will be screening residents for income and criminal history, developing out some of 19 th Ave
and once finished, will enhance that corner that is badly in need of development.
I hope you will consider supporting this project, which I believe will be perfect for our area
Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays.
Best,
Rosa Somohano
2526 W Rancho Laredo Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85085
(770)595-2384
Page 588
David O Simmons
From: SCIA
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Please support Toll Brothers at 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Dear Councilmember O’Brien,
My name is Clif Freedman and I am the President of Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association. We represent the
area of zip code 85085.
Our mission is to advocate for proper development that supports the housing needs in our area.
With the large number of employers moving into Phoenix and particularly into the North Valley, it is imperative we
offer housing options.
A mixture of options is necessary to support the various preferences of those individuals moving into the
area. When looking at multi family, we specifically prefer controlled environments that promote and ensure the
safety and aesthetics our northern area enjoys. For this and many other reasons we whole heartily support the
proposed Toll Brothers project located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley Rd.
This project will:
Maintain a Gated Entry
Will be Screening residents for income and criminal history
Provides an amazing building design that includes enhanced landscape and superior architecture
It’s height is appropriate for the area
IT will promote walkability in the area
It also offers and extensive menu of amenities that screams “high end” housing.
Further:
It takes an undeveloped piece of land and enhances that corner
It is a downzoning – which is incredibly important to our association. The downzoning will decrease traffic
in the area
This project will be building out 19th Ave – which is incredibly valuable for current traffic needs
Toll Brothers is a reputable company who holds a reputation of building and managing beautiful
properties.
For these reasons – I encourage your support of this project.
The additional housing is greatly needed in the area and this is exactly the type of multi housing we should
celebrate.
Thank you for your time.
Clif Freedman
1716 West Buckhorn Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85085
623-444-9445
Clif Freedman, President
Page 589
Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association SCIA
SonoranCitizens@gmail.com
Page 590
David O Simmons
From: matthew crook
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Case #Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members O’Brien and Simmons,
I support this project at 19th Ave and Happy Valley. It’s a needed improvement to the area. More housing and business
for the area.
Matthew Crook
General Manager IHOP 3083
2103 W Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 591
David O Simmons
From: brebek3@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:48 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1, Toll Brothers - Happy Valley and 19th ave
Working for businesses in the area at 19 ave and Happy Valley. I support this project. This type of
housing is needed in the area. This also supports revenue for businesses in the area
Page 592
David O Simmons
From: Amer Atwan
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley And 19th AVE
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. House of this type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city
Amer atwan: Director Of Operations
Mesquite Fresh Street Mex
1730 West Happy Valley Rd
Phoenix Az, 85085
--
Amer Atwan
Corporate team member
Phone Number: (602) 775 3019
Page 593
David O Simmons
From: Jennifer Hammond
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this area. It will also creat more revenue for the businesses and
city.
Thank you,
Jennifer Hammond
IHOP
2103 w Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 594
David O Simmons
From: Scott Dennin
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:55 PM
To: counsil.district.1@phoenix.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Counsel Members: O'Brien and Simmons
We support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue
for the business and city.
Scott Dennin - District Trainer
AZ - District 015
SmartStop Self Storage
(602) 657-6725 - Cell
www.smartstop.com [smartstop.com]
Page 595
David O Simmons
From: Lan Ngo
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1
Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city.
Name: Lan Ngo
Company:
Happy Feet Nails & Spa 3
1730 W Happy Valley Rd Suite 103
Phoenix AZ 85085
623-248-54209
Page 596
Attachment H
David O Simmons
From: Wayne Hudgeons
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 (Companion Case Z-48-21-1):
My name is Wayne Hudgeons and I live at 25406 N 17th ave.
I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the request to amend the General Plan Land Use of the 13.48 acres. I
feel that this community is great with the zoning that we have and that is why we purchased a place to call home. The
rezoning to multi family dwellings or apartments does not go with the character of our neighborhood. When we bought
a house here to make our long term home we knew there would be development, we are not opposed to development.
We made a conscious choice after looking at the zoning, knowing that there was the study for 300 feet of commercial
along Happy Valley and there would be a medical building on 19th ave, that would add value to our community. The rest
of the undeveloped land in the General Land Use Map and current zoning was R-43. Another reason would be the extra
noise and light pollution would not be a good fit with our rural community of horses and livestock, even with light
shades and directional lighting it very stressful to horses. The extra traffic that would come through our private
community maintained roads would also be a major burden.
Best Regards,
Wayne Hudgeons
623-340-0579
Page 597
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:44 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and DV:2-21-1
This is Martha Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave, Phoenix,Az 85085. I am requesting that you please consider our way of life. We
are a rural area, we want to stay this way. One house per acre.
I am against placing apartments of any kind in this small area. I am s urprised at all the apartment buildings along 19th Ave
North of Pinnacle Peak, along Happy Valley at 17th ave ,again at 35th ave and along Jomax and I 17. We simply do not
need any more apartments.
Thank you for listening and please give our area some consideration.
Mrs Martha Tallant
25814 N, 17th Ave
Phoenix,Az 85085
Page 598
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:07 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Melissa Crawford; Julie Burns
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
Mr. Simmons,
I was unable to join this meeting, but certainly we are quite disappointed from the things I have heard about
how the meeting in general was conducted and the evident Approval by the Commission. We had high hopes
based upon earlier Staff comments involving the protection from high density for the east side of 19th Ave.
I have several Inquiries / Requests related to this meeting / decision;
First, is there a link to a visual and audio recording of this meeting as I would like to review that footage, and
are there transcribed minutes that can be reviewed ? I would appreciate a link to any and all pertaining to that.
Secondly, in Maricopa County there is an opportunity to Appeal decisions made by their Commission,
RE:
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
1. Appeal FormIf the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed on
a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received within 15
calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the
Board of Supervisors hearing.
does the City offer a similar or any appeal process to your decisions?
My understanding from things I have heard is that the presenter for Toll Brothers and another person stated
many untruths in reference to our neighborhood and the people that reside here.That is one of the many issues
that I feel we should have the opportunity to rebut, as well as being able to examine the names on the list of
people he purported were all in favor of this build. I also understand that there was a gentleman speaking that
stated or implied that he was someone with some kind of authority to represent the people of the 85085 zip
code. I would like to know more on that issue as well. I can promise you that he does not in any way represent
anyone that we are aware of within our County Island and those are the people that should be listened to with
the most concern.
None of us are against housing on this property, we are aware housing is in short supply, but that supply should
be a variety of offerings, as apartments are generally not where people choose to live their entire lives. And as
stated over and over again throughout the years by the Deer Valley Planning Commission, transitional areas
such as ours where people do have actual homes with actual families that are already well established in their
lives on R-43 land deserve some thoughtful consideration as to what will appropriately border their properties.
We are having to maneuver our way through this process all while we work our full time jobs and juggle life.
Page 599
Now we are all presented with the biggest threat to our environment and Rural zoning and we find it quite
unfair that people with deep pockets and no real ties to our community can just come in and bully their way
through a process without someone giving careful consideration to those of us who live here (and we don't feel
that is happening).
Maybe it would be appropriate for the people who will make the final decisions to come out to our
neighborhood to see and speak to those of us who actually RESIDE here, we can't offer fancy presentations, but
coffee and cake could be provided, so consider that an open invitation Ms. O'Brien and colleagues. I'm sure
one of us would be happy to host.
I would appreciate any and all information that you can supply to help us pursue these matters further.
Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
As an example we would like to point out that we do not feel that the principals quoted below are being applied
to our neighborhood and this developers request. We at a minimum deserve more time and ways to present our
side of this, keeping in mind we have limited funds but alot of heart. Working within the numerous and diverse
work schedules is challenging for us all which is why we ask to somehow find more time for us to present our
case.
https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00472.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iWTGrEX7DmCh5vtN
_x-995n-sdKyXOZWaROqUKVlXs_by27dEUXBoVAY
Quotes;
"Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new
development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance"
"Require appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses"
"The village is characterized by its desert setting and mountains, diverse and growing communities, and large
employment centers. It is distinguished by its attraction for business, variety of
housing types and density ranges"
"Additionally, the village is an active area of the city for the construction of single-family homes and
redevelopment. Development within the Deer Valley Village should integrate into and incorporate elements of
the natural desert environment."
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPHX%20General%20Plan%202015%20Executive%20Summ
ary.pdf
A BLUEPRINT FOR A CONNECTED OASIS - Phoenix, Arizona
Exete Say THE BLUEPRINT: A STRATEGIC SET OF TOOLS Using the Five Core Values as the foundation for
the Vision, the updated General Plan will also contain a list of strategic Tools within each of the Five Core
Values that will be implemented by staff,
Page 600
www.phoenix.gov
Quotes;
"Phoenix will continue to be like no other city in the world. A place steeped in history, defined by its beautiful desert
setting, activated by unique neighborhoods and
businesses"
"Celebrate our Diverse Communities and Neighborhoods"
" Certainty & Character - Through the development of guiding principles for every Phoenix neighborhood, residents will
have greater levels of certainty about their quality of life and protections to ensure that their neighborhood remains
unique and livable."
Page 601
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:06 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; undefined gaxiola+40phoenix+2Egov@namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Julie Burns; Melissa Crawford
Subject: City of Phoenix ‐ GPA‐DV‐2‐21‐1 and Z‐48‐21‐1
The Zoning in our County Island is R‐43 and at least 50% plus of our County Island built and conform with R‐43 zoning. That is why
we bought and built on this property 30+ years ago. At a Minimum your decisions should lean heavily to those of us that did not buy
property zoned for something else becasue it was cheaper than buying land zoned for our intended purpose. BOTH of these
proposed developments (even though one is City and the other County) are taking advantage of the residents within this island and
obviously have much deeper pockets than we.
The people that own and reside in the area that will be greatly impacted by this type of density change. Therefore the opposition
from homeowners within our entire County Island area should be given the most weight.
It should also take into account the following;
The Owners of Parcels ‐ 210‐10‐008B ‐ 210‐10‐008D ‐ 210‐10‐008F ‐ 210‐10‐008G ‐ should have NO VOICE in this development as
they have already been strong armed into selling out to the developer
The Owners of The Bungalows at Norterra should also have NO VOICE Parcels 210‐10‐027A , 210‐10‐031A, 210‐10‐020D, 210‐1‐
=020C, 210‐10‐010
And both Developers should be treated as hostile voices as they are supporting each other in their bids to effect unalterable life
changing events within our land‐locked County Island.
The majority of the Parcels within our boundaries ( 19th Ave‐Jomax‐CAP‐Happy Valley) are Owned and Occupied Homes built within
the constraints of Maricopa County R‐43 Zoning. Based upon Documents published over the Years by the Deer Valley Planning
Commission, we had every reason to expect our area would remain as is (even if the City of Phoenix successfully annexed us all) . We
understand there is a need for housing, buy there is a need for all types of housing and anything built of the vacant lands within our
boundaries should be with that in mind. Multi Family dwelling is not transitional to R‐43. Single Family Homes on no less than .33
acres could be seen as transitional. It might also be seen as quite desirable to those who would prefer not to live in high density
developments.
There have been statements by the Developers and some Planning Staff that would imply the residents of our area do not really care
as we haven’t been vocal enough or “organized” in our opposition to these Developments. Please keep in mind that especially over
the last 2 years life has become very busy and stressful for many many people. None of us are being paid to sit in these meetings
over and over again, it is difficult to even keep up with any information as written letters are not sent to each of us as homeowners,
signs are installed with no dates, then dates, then dates that change AND we are having to OPPOSE (2) developments side by side
that both want the same outcome AT THE SAME TIME !! It may not seem like it to you but we are trying our best to show you with
the resources and time that we have. I have spent many of my days off work speaking with and trying to compose coherent and to
the point letters. I don’t find that easy as I am a long winded person (I am aware) but I am also passionate and find it difficult to be
anything else when we are speaking of losing what we have spent our lives building.
Phoenix is in need of ALL TYPES of housing and our perimeter has already been subjected to higher density developments, now you
want to come directly INTO our small “Island area” with even higher density allowances. I cannot comprehend how that can be
defined as Transitional. Just one of these developments will increases the current population by probably more than 300 %. We
implore you to protect those that need protecting and VOTE NO to these changes
Respectfully
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85085
Page1 602
Report
21-1 - Approximately 270 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road (Resolution 21989)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-48-21-1 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-48-21-1.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Commercial,
and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily residential
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Sept. 9,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 9,
2021 and recommended approval, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road.
Council District: 1
Parcel Addresses: 25255 N. 19th Ave.; and 1734, 1737, 1745, 1748 W. Desert Hollow
Drive.
Page 541
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 542
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-DV-2-21-1, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DV-2-21-1. The 13.48 acres
of property located approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th
Avenue and Happy Valley Road is designated as Residential 15+ dwelling units per
acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 543
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February
2022.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
Page 544
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
PL:amt:____v1 (CM __) (Item _) 2/2/2022
Page 545
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
December 7, 2021
Application: GPA-DV-2-21-1
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner
of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41
acres), Commercial (4.97 acres), Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce Park) (4.10 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre (13.48
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow multifamily
residential uses
Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee Date: December 9, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of 15+ dwelling units per
acre provides a transition in scale and intensity from development on the west
side of 19th Avenue.
2) The Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre land use designation will permit
residential development that will add to the diverse housing options in the area
within close proximity to a designated employment center.
Page 546
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 2
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-48-21-1, contains development standards that
will promote development at an appropriate scale for the general area.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 270
feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue
and Happy Valley Road. The eastern portion of
the site is occupied by four single-family homes.
The western portion of the site, abutting 19th
Avenue, is currently vacant. The companion
Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 is a request to
allow PUD zoning for multifamily residential uses
on the entirety of the site.
Currently, the General Plan Land Use Map
designation on the site is Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed
Use (Commercial / Commerce Park). The
eastern portion of the site is currently in
unincorporated Maricopa County. The
commercial designation on the site is depicted in
red on the graphic to the right. The existing
residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
designation is depicted in yellow. An annexation
application for that portion of the site is actively
being pursued by the applicant.
The site is located near two major arterials
streets. An existing bus stop and bus stop pad is
located on the east side of 19th Avenue just to
the south of the site. A City of Phoenix
Existing General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of
designated bike lane is also located along 19th Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Avenue.
The area surrounding the subject site has seen a significant amount of investment in the
last 10 years. This investment has positioned the area between Jomax Road
and north of the Deer Valley Airport as a corridor for mixed-use, industrial,
commerce park and multifamily residential development.
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
There are four existing single-family residential homes on the eastern portion of the site,
pending annexation into the City of Phoenix limits. The western portion of the site is
comprised of vacant land that is zoned C-O/M-O (Commercial Office, Major Office
Page 547
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 3
District). The western portion of the site is comprised of four residential lots. The table
below provides a summary of the surrounding General Plan (GP) Land Use Map
designations, existing land uses and zoning.
Location GP Land Use Existing Land Uses Zoning
North Residential 3.5 to 5 Vacant RU-43 (Maricopa
dwelling units per acre County)
South Mixed Use Convenience store, C-2 and C-2 SP
(Commercial, commercial retail, and self-
Commerce/Business service storage facility
Park)
East Residential 3.5 to 5 Vacant and self-service S-1 and C-2 SP
dwelling units per acre storage facility
and Mixed Use
(Commercial /
Commerce Park)
West Residential 3.5 to 5 Multifamily residential, APS PUD and RU-43
(abutting and dwelling units per acre electrical substation, and (County)
across 19th and Mixed Use vacant
Avenue) (Commercial,
Commerce/Business
Park, Residential 5-10
dwelling units per
acre, Residential 10-
15 dwelling units per
acre, and Residential
15+ dwelling units per
acre)
Surrounding Land Use Designations, Land Use and Zoning
The site is located within close proximity of the
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
designated North Black Canyon and Phoenix
designated Deer Valley employment centers. This
proposal will provide new housing opportunities for
existing residents and the workforce in these two
major employment centers.
The request facilitates additional residential options
adjacent to major arterial streets and in close
proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley
Road corridor. The proposed development is sensitive
to surrounding residential and commercial
development, thereby warranting the reasonable
Major Employment Center Map, Source:
Page 548
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 4
levels of height and density proposed between the more intense Norterra development
to the west and the more rural residential to the east.
A mix of housing types are encouraged in and around employment centers and
commercial corridors. The North Black Canyon employment center profile provided by
the City of Phoenix Community and Economic Development Department identifies this
corridor as having a mix of workers in the current
labor pool that mirrors the metro area with a solid base of management as well as sales,
clerical and administrative personnel. Workers in the North Black Canyon area are also
well educated. Providing additional residential options in close proximity to the nearby
office spaces in this rapidly growing area will add to the sustainability of the established
employment center and the Norterra area overall.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PPRINCIPLES
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development
and redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
This development proposal will provide a transition in land use that will maintain
an appropriate character and scale compatible with existing entitlements and
surrounding land uses in the general area. This proposal is appropriately located
along an arterial street, near a major street intersection, and close proximity to
employment centers. Further, the opportunity to add additional housing choices
is consistent with the goals of the Housing Phoenix Plan.
• CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The request and concurrent rezoning case Z-48-21-1 proposes multifamily
development adjacent to an arterial street and within close proximity to a major
street intersection with existing or planned bus service and designated bicycle
lanes. The concentration of people within or adjacent to an employment center
and near employment uses and transportation corridors promotes the
sustainability of nearby commercial uses.
• CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a
mix of housing types and densities where appropriate within each village
that support a broad range of lifestyles.
The request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial
Page 549
Staff Analysis
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Page 5
streets, in close proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley Road corridor
as well as in close proximity to two major employment centers.
.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DV-2-21-1 as filed. The request aligns with the
goals and polices of the General Plan and will result in a land use designation that will
continue to support surrounding uses while maximizing the property’s location along a
major arterial and nearby employment centers.
Currently, there is a transition along the Norterra community towards mix of housing
types and commercial services. Recent development suggests the area around Norterra
is evolving to a mixture of housing choices and commercial uses. The proposed land
use map change will serve as a continuation of the proposed land use designations to
the south, west, and north of the subject site.
This proposed Minor General Plan Amendment request is consistent with surrounding
land use transitions and General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area.
Writer
David Simmons
December 07, 2021
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 550
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-2-21-1_BW ACRES: 13.48 +/-
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Toll Brothers
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 4.41 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 4.97 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) ( 4.10 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/acre
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commercial Park/ 19TH AVE
Residential 5 to 10/10 to 15/15+)
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 13.48 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
19TH AVE
Residential 15+ du/acre
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Page 551
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DV-2-21-1 ACRES: 13.48 +/-
VILLAGE: Deer Valley COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1
APPLICANT: Toll Brothers
EXISTING:
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac ( 4.41 +/- Acres)
Commercial ( 4.97 +/- Acres)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park) ( 4.10 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 3.5 to 5 du/ac
19TH AVE
Commercial
Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park)
Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce Park/
Business Park/Residential 5 to 10/10 to 15/15+)
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 15+ du/ac ( 13.48 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area
Residential 15+ du/ac
19TH AVE
17TH AVE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Page 552
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-2-21-1 (INFO ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41 acres),
Commercial (4.97acres), and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce Park) (4.10 acres) to
Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation NA
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak
7 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided a detailed
overview of both the General Plan Amendment (GPA) request and the Rezoning
request. He started by highlighting the quality of the Toll Brothers brand and
quality of their products. He continued by highlighting the reasoning behind Toll
Brothers decision to move forward with the subject site. He stated that the area is
close to residential amenities, employment hubs and transportation corridors. He
also shared that this area is growing rapidly and there is a need for alternative
forms of housing in the area. Mr. Wood covered the request for the GPA and
provided reasoning behind the need for the map change to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. He went on to address community concerns that he was
aware of to include a stepback approach to building elevations along the northern
and eastern property boundaries and enhanced landscaping to act as a buffer to
nearby large lot residential. He also highlighted an open fencing concept that
would make the site look more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property
owners, giving them the benefit of the enhanced landscaping proposed. Mr.
Wood went over the site plan in detail highlighting that this proposal will be a
gated, luxury multifamily development with resort like interior courtyard
amenities. He highlighted that any noise generated from residents of the
community would be contained within the interior courtyards of the development,
completely surrounded by living units. Mr. Wood went o er the development
standards table. Further, Mr. Wood showcased the conceptual rendering of the
elevations, site plan and landscape plans depicting a high quality design that Toll
Brothers is known for.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 553
Mr. Ozzie Virgil left the meeting at approximately 7:15, bringing quorum to 8.
Public Comment:
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing directly north of the subject site, shared
concerns about increased traffic, increase in population density, crime, and the
character of the rural area changing.
Ms. Michelle Gardner, VPC member, asked Ms. Crawford what her greatest
concerns are.
Ms. Crawford shared that her greatest concerns are the proposed height and
traffic.
Ms. Diane Habener, residing east of the subject site, has concerns with the
proposed height and recommended a maximum of two-stories.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Ms. Habener if she resides within the
County Island.
Ms. Habener shared that she does reside within the County Island boundaries.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing north of the subject site, shared concerns about
loosing a perceived buffer zone between Norterra and the County Island, which
is currently zoned commercial. She shared that she and her neighbors were
expecting a single story commercial office use being built on this site. She
shared concerns related to proposed height, increase in traffic, and stated that
this PUD request is not wanted.
Mr. Clif Freedman, residing at 1716 Buckhorn Trail, shared that he is supportive
of the request. He shared that the concerns about proposed height are irrelevant
due to the existing entitlement son the site allowing up to four-stories. He shared
that he supports the project, supports Toll Brothers and highlighted that Toll
Brothers builds high end projects. Further, he shared that tenants of a high end
development such as this would not result in an increase in crime.
Mr. James Whatley shared that he is opposed to the request. He has concerns
about the character of the area changing and increase in population. He asked
that the zoning stay as it currently is.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood spoke to the concerns and shared that commercial zoning traffic
counts are much higher than residential uses. He also highlighted that the
majority of units are I bedroom, which may result in 2-3 people maximum
residing in a single unit. He introduced Ms. Dawn Cartier with Civ Tech, a traffic
engineering company, to speak on traffic volumes.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 554
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineers, went over the traffic report and
highlighted the anticipated number of trips per day that would be generated from
such a use, which is much lower than a commercial center would generate.
Mr. Wood offered a rebuttal to the height concerns and highlighted the
stepbacks proposed and the enhanced landscaping that acts as an aesthetically
pleasing buffer between exiting large lot residential uses to the north and to the
east.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Mr. Wood if existing single-family homes
have already sold to Toll Brothers. He also wanted to confirm is self-storage was
directly adjacent.
Mr. Wood confirmed that there are property owners that have already sold to the
developer and that there is a self-storage use adjacent to the subject site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 555
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DV-2-21-1
Date of VPC Meeting December 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation from
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (4.41 acres),
Commercial (4.97 acres), Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park) (4.10 acres) to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre (13.48 acres)
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation Approval
Vote 10-0-1; motion to approve passed, with Committee
Members Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis,
Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis, Shipman and
Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Deer
Valley and North Black Canyon Employment Centers, Comprehensive Bicycle
Master plan, Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles,
Zero Waste Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix
Plan. Mr. Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed
stipulations for the case. He also shared that an annexation request for the
eastern portion of the site is running concurrently with the GPA and rezoning
request.
Mr. Nick Wood, representing the applicant, provided a greatly detailed
presentation to include how this proposal is consistent with development trends
int eh surrounding area, the General Plan Land Use Map designation change,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation plans for the site, enhanced landscaping
standards proposed, and an explanation of the approved traffic study showing
how the proposed use will not adversely affect traffic flows int the area. Further,
Mr. Wood elaborated on the high quality architectural embellishment proposed
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 556
for the façade, the view fencing, and the proximity to residential as well as the
building height in relation to residential and the more intense Norterra to the
west.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Keith Greenberg asked staff is the annexation request just included this site
or more land area surrounding the site.
Mr. Simmons, staff, hared that the annexation request is for the four residential
lots that make up the easter portion of the subject site. No other land area
surrounding the site is included int eh annexation request.
Mr. Greenberg inquired as to where ingress and egress was gong to occur on
the site.
Mr. Wood shared that the site plan configuration was updated due to Street
comments that Desert Hollow Drive was going to be improved, resulting in an
ingress/egress point there as well as an ingress/egress point off of 19th Avenue.
Further, he shared that queuing could occur on Desert Hollow Drive during peak
hours and a median will be installed along 19th Avenue, which will act as a traffic
calming feature.
Mr. Greenberg asked how many living units are currently proposed.
Mr. Wood shared that a maximum of 470 units are proposed.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo shared that there are many other apartment complexes
int eh area and their traffic flows do not have an adverse effect on local traffic
patterns. She shared that a commercial use on this site would generate much
higher traffic volumes.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked if 19th Avenue was going to improved.
Mr. Simmons shared that 19th Avenue will be improved in accordance with the
Cross section A requirements of the Street Classification map.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, explained the traffic study and went into detail
about traffic patters resulting from specific uses.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked what the rental rates were and what is the current
proposed density.
Mr. Wood shared that the density proposed is 34 dwelling units per acre, which
is much lower than a typical multifamily request he represents. Further, he
shared the rental rates will be $1.76 a square foot which translates to $1200.00
for a one bedroom.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked what the original proposed number of units
were prior to making modifications to the site plan as a result of the improvement
requirements for Desert Hollow Lane.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 557
Mr. Wood shared that the original proposed number of units was 500.
Mr. Stuart Kimball applauded the applicant on such a detailed presentation and
their public outreach efforts. He also stated that with the required 19th Avenue
improvement, traffic concerns should be eliminated as lanes will be added.
Public Comment:
Ms. Laura Bates, residing at 1744 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
increased traffic volumes and requested a secondar traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Brian Bates, residing at 1744 W Parsons Rd, shared that he too has traffic
concerns as there are equestrians in the areas well as livestock. He also shared
concerns in regard to loss of property values as a result of this development and
drainage concerns.
Mr. Nick Wood explained that grading and drainage goes through a rigorous
plan review proves to include on-site retention. He shared that, if needed, large
retention compartments will be installed underground o eh subject site.
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing at 1736 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
equestrians in the area, the character of the area changing and devaluations of
properties.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked how many people showed up for the public meetings.
Ms. Crawford stated she believes the numbers were skewed due to COVID and
the meetings taking place over the holiday season.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing at 1717 W. Yearling Rd, shared concerns about
livestock in the area needing large dirt lot, which will create dust and other
nuisances for future residents. Further, she shared concerns about the character
of the area changing.
Ms. Marjorie McCaw, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing.
Mr. Stephen Baker-Murphy, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about
buffers, transitions between uses in the area, character of area changing and
devaluation of existing large lot residential properties due to proposed
development.
Chairman joseph Grossman asked Mr. Baker-Murphy how long he has lived in
his home.
Mr. Baker-Murphy shared that he has resided in his home for four years.
Ms. Kim Cocuzza, residing on 17th Ave, shared concerns about the character of
the area changing and increased traffic.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 558
Ms. Alison McKee, residing at 1219 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing, livestock in the area and traffic volume
increasing.
Mr. Cliff Freedman, residing at 1716 W. Buckhorn Trail, spoke in support of the
proposal. He highlighted that more housing options are needed in this area and
the City of Phoenix is growing rapidly and housing demand cannot keep up.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood stated that housing needs are a result of supply and demand. He
shared that the City of Phoenix is currently the fastest growing city in the nation
attracting over 90k new residents per year. He asked for a recommendation for
approval.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked is this site lies within the boundaries of the Deer Valley
Airport Overlay (DVAO).
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that it does not lie within the DVAO.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked staff to share details about the proposed bungalow
project taking place just to the north of the subject site.
Mr. Simmons shared that the bungalow project is located within the boundaries
of Maricopa County. Therefore, staff does not have purview over that project and
cannot speak to it.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo stated that she is sympathetic and understanding of the
publics concerns. However, growth is inevitable for this area considering the
incredible investments going in all around. She also stated that traffic is not going
to be of grave concern considering the use. Further, she stated that more
housing options are critically needed in this area.
Mr. Mark Davenport left the meeting bringing quorum down to 11.
MOTION:
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo motioned to approve GPA-DV-2-21-1, per the staff
recommendation.
Mr. Mark Lewis seconded the motion.
VOTE: 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee Members
Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis, Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy,
Lewis, Shipman and Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 559
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DV-2-21-1
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed Use
(Commercial/Commerce Park)
To: Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre
Proposal: Multifamily Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre.
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 9/9/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 12/9/2021 Approval. Vote: 10-0 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve GPA-DV-2-21-1, per the
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of 15+ dwelling units per acre
provides a transition in scale and intensity from development on the west side of 19th
Avenue.
2. The Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre land use designation will permit residential
development that will add to the diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to a designated employment center.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-48-21-1, contains development standards that will
promote development at an appropriate scale for the general area.
Page 560
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 561
Attachment F
Page 562
Page 563
Page 564
Page 565
Page 566
Page 567
Page 568
Page 569
Page 570
Page 571
Page 572
Page 573
Page 574
Page 575
Page 576
Page 577
Page 578
Page 579
Page 580
Page 581
Page 582
Page 583
Page 584
Page 585
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; pjaramillo@swlaw.com
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I apologize I had a family emergency come up last night so I was not able to attend the call. I would like to show my
support of the Toll Brothers and their proposed project on 19 th ave. I believe Toll brother builds a great product and
confident that it will bring quality living spaces to the area.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Lupo, Matthew J.
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Mr. Lupo,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 and GPA-V-2-21-1. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
support.
The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee (DV VPC) will hear the cases at the December 9, 2021 meeting. I have added
your name to the speaker roster for the December 9, 2021 meeting. Please click on the registration link on the attached
agenda to register for the meeting.
The Planning Commission will hear the case at the January 6, 2022 meeting and the City Council will make a final
decision on February 2, 2022.
The applicants hearing draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-48-21-1)
Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.
Page 586
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:50 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I would like to request a link for case Z-48-21-1, items #3,4 and request to speak in support of Proposed project at 19 th
ave and Happy Valley road.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Page 587
David O Simmons
From: RS B
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers project
Dear Councilmember O’Brien.
My name is Rosa Somohano and I am a resident in North Phoenix
Our area is growing tremendously and I am thankful for the many employers moving into the area. What is needed now
is more housing options. I received a presentation on the proposed Toll Brothers projects to be located at Happy Valley
Rd. and 19thAve and I really like it. It has so many great amenities and most importantly is a higher end development.
This will encourage and promote safety for our area and be attractive to the many employees who are now working in
our area.
I also appreciate that they will be screening residents for income and criminal history, developing out some of 19 th Ave
and once finished, will enhance that corner that is badly in need of development.
I hope you will consider supporting this project, which I believe will be perfect for our area
Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays.
Best,
Rosa Somohano
2526 W Rancho Laredo Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85085
(770)595-2384
Page 588
David O Simmons
From: SCIA
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Please support Toll Brothers at 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Dear Councilmember O’Brien,
My name is Clif Freedman and I am the President of Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association. We represent the
area of zip code 85085.
Our mission is to advocate for proper development that supports the housing needs in our area.
With the large number of employers moving into Phoenix and particularly into the North Valley, it is imperative we
offer housing options.
A mixture of options is necessary to support the various preferences of those individuals moving into the
area. When looking at multi family, we specifically prefer controlled environments that promote and ensure the
safety and aesthetics our northern area enjoys. For this and many other reasons we whole heartily support the
proposed Toll Brothers project located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley Rd.
This project will:
Maintain a Gated Entry
Will be Screening residents for income and criminal history
Provides an amazing building design that includes enhanced landscape and superior architecture
It’s height is appropriate for the area
IT will promote walkability in the area
It also offers and extensive menu of amenities that screams “high end” housing.
Further:
It takes an undeveloped piece of land and enhances that corner
It is a downzoning – which is incredibly important to our association. The downzoning will decrease traffic
in the area
This project will be building out 19th Ave – which is incredibly valuable for current traffic needs
Toll Brothers is a reputable company who holds a reputation of building and managing beautiful
properties.
For these reasons – I encourage your support of this project.
The additional housing is greatly needed in the area and this is exactly the type of multi housing we should
celebrate.
Thank you for your time.
Clif Freedman
1716 West Buckhorn Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85085
623-444-9445
Clif Freedman, President
Page 589
Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association SCIA
SonoranCitizens@gmail.com
Page 590
David O Simmons
From: matthew crook
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Case #Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members O’Brien and Simmons,
I support this project at 19th Ave and Happy Valley. It’s a needed improvement to the area. More housing and business
for the area.
Matthew Crook
General Manager IHOP 3083
2103 W Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 591
David O Simmons
From: brebek3@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:48 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1, Toll Brothers - Happy Valley and 19th ave
Working for businesses in the area at 19 ave and Happy Valley. I support this project. This type of
housing is needed in the area. This also supports revenue for businesses in the area
Page 592
David O Simmons
From: Amer Atwan
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley And 19th AVE
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. House of this type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city
Amer atwan: Director Of Operations
Mesquite Fresh Street Mex
1730 West Happy Valley Rd
Phoenix Az, 85085
--
Amer Atwan
Corporate team member
Phone Number: (602) 775 3019
Page 593
David O Simmons
From: Jennifer Hammond
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this area. It will also creat more revenue for the businesses and
city.
Thank you,
Jennifer Hammond
IHOP
2103 w Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 594
David O Simmons
From: Scott Dennin
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:55 PM
To: counsil.district.1@phoenix.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Counsel Members: O'Brien and Simmons
We support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue
for the business and city.
Scott Dennin - District Trainer
AZ - District 015
SmartStop Self Storage
(602) 657-6725 - Cell
www.smartstop.com [smartstop.com]
Page 595
David O Simmons
From: Lan Ngo
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1
Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city.
Name: Lan Ngo
Company:
Happy Feet Nails & Spa 3
1730 W Happy Valley Rd Suite 103
Phoenix AZ 85085
623-248-54209
Page 596
Attachment H
David O Simmons
From: Wayne Hudgeons
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 (Companion Case Z-48-21-1):
My name is Wayne Hudgeons and I live at 25406 N 17th ave.
I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the request to amend the General Plan Land Use of the 13.48 acres. I
feel that this community is great with the zoning that we have and that is why we purchased a place to call home. The
rezoning to multi family dwellings or apartments does not go with the character of our neighborhood. When we bought
a house here to make our long term home we knew there would be development, we are not opposed to development.
We made a conscious choice after looking at the zoning, knowing that there was the study for 300 feet of commercial
along Happy Valley and there would be a medical building on 19th ave, that would add value to our community. The rest
of the undeveloped land in the General Land Use Map and current zoning was R-43. Another reason would be the extra
noise and light pollution would not be a good fit with our rural community of horses and livestock, even with light
shades and directional lighting it very stressful to horses. The extra traffic that would come through our private
community maintained roads would also be a major burden.
Best Regards,
Wayne Hudgeons
623-340-0579
Page 597
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:44 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and DV:2-21-1
This is Martha Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave, Phoenix,Az 85085. I am requesting that you please consider our way of life. We
are a rural area, we want to stay this way. One house per acre.
I am against placing apartments of any kind in this small area. I am s urprised at all the apartment buildings along 19th Ave
North of Pinnacle Peak, along Happy Valley at 17th ave ,again at 35th ave and along Jomax and I 17. We simply do not
need any more apartments.
Thank you for listening and please give our area some consideration.
Mrs Martha Tallant
25814 N, 17th Ave
Phoenix,Az 85085
Page 598
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:07 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Melissa Crawford; Julie Burns
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
Mr. Simmons,
I was unable to join this meeting, but certainly we are quite disappointed from the things I have heard about
how the meeting in general was conducted and the evident Approval by the Commission. We had high hopes
based upon earlier Staff comments involving the protection from high density for the east side of 19th Ave.
I have several Inquiries / Requests related to this meeting / decision;
First, is there a link to a visual and audio recording of this meeting as I would like to review that footage, and
are there transcribed minutes that can be reviewed ? I would appreciate a link to any and all pertaining to that.
Secondly, in Maricopa County there is an opportunity to Appeal decisions made by their Commission,
RE:
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
1. Appeal FormIf the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed on
a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received within 15
calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the
Board of Supervisors hearing.
does the City offer a similar or any appeal process to your decisions?
My understanding from things I have heard is that the presenter for Toll Brothers and another person stated
many untruths in reference to our neighborhood and the people that reside here.That is one of the many issues
that I feel we should have the opportunity to rebut, as well as being able to examine the names on the list of
people he purported were all in favor of this build. I also understand that there was a gentleman speaking that
stated or implied that he was someone with some kind of authority to represent the people of the 85085 zip
code. I would like to know more on that issue as well. I can promise you that he does not in any way represent
anyone that we are aware of within our County Island and those are the people that should be listened to with
the most concern.
None of us are against housing on this property, we are aware housing is in short supply, but that supply should
be a variety of offerings, as apartments are generally not where people choose to live their entire lives. And as
stated over and over again throughout the years by the Deer Valley Planning Commission, transitional areas
such as ours where people do have actual homes with actual families that are already well established in their
lives on R-43 land deserve some thoughtful consideration as to what will appropriately border their properties.
We are having to maneuver our way through this process all while we work our full time jobs and juggle life.
Page 599
Now we are all presented with the biggest threat to our environment and Rural zoning and we find it quite
unfair that people with deep pockets and no real ties to our community can just come in and bully their way
through a process without someone giving careful consideration to those of us who live here (and we don't feel
that is happening).
Maybe it would be appropriate for the people who will make the final decisions to come out to our
neighborhood to see and speak to those of us who actually RESIDE here, we can't offer fancy presentations, but
coffee and cake could be provided, so consider that an open invitation Ms. O'Brien and colleagues. I'm sure
one of us would be happy to host.
I would appreciate any and all information that you can supply to help us pursue these matters further.
Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
As an example we would like to point out that we do not feel that the principals quoted below are being applied
to our neighborhood and this developers request. We at a minimum deserve more time and ways to present our
side of this, keeping in mind we have limited funds but alot of heart. Working within the numerous and diverse
work schedules is challenging for us all which is why we ask to somehow find more time for us to present our
case.
https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00472.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iWTGrEX7DmCh5vtN
_x-995n-sdKyXOZWaROqUKVlXs_by27dEUXBoVAY
Quotes;
"Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new
development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance"
"Require appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses"
"The village is characterized by its desert setting and mountains, diverse and growing communities, and large
employment centers. It is distinguished by its attraction for business, variety of
housing types and density ranges"
"Additionally, the village is an active area of the city for the construction of single-family homes and
redevelopment. Development within the Deer Valley Village should integrate into and incorporate elements of
the natural desert environment."
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPHX%20General%20Plan%202015%20Executive%20Summ
ary.pdf
A BLUEPRINT FOR A CONNECTED OASIS - Phoenix, Arizona
Exete Say THE BLUEPRINT: A STRATEGIC SET OF TOOLS Using the Five Core Values as the foundation for
the Vision, the updated General Plan will also contain a list of strategic Tools within each of the Five Core
Values that will be implemented by staff,
Page 600
www.phoenix.gov
Quotes;
"Phoenix will continue to be like no other city in the world. A place steeped in history, defined by its beautiful desert
setting, activated by unique neighborhoods and
businesses"
"Celebrate our Diverse Communities and Neighborhoods"
" Certainty & Character - Through the development of guiding principles for every Phoenix neighborhood, residents will
have greater levels of certainty about their quality of life and protections to ensure that their neighborhood remains
unique and livable."
Page 601
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:06 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Julie Burns
Subject: City of Phoenix ‐ GPA‐DV‐2‐21‐1 and Z‐48‐21‐1
The Zoning in our County Island is R‐43 and at least 50% plus of our County Island built and conform with R‐43 zoning. That is why
we bought and built on this property 30+ years ago. At a Minimum your decisions should lean heavily to those of us that did not buy
property zoned for something else becasue it was cheaper than buying land zoned for our intended purpose. BOTH of these
proposed developments (even though one is City and the other County) are taking advantage of the residents within this island and
obviously have much deeper pockets than we.
The people that own and reside in the area that will be greatly impacted by this type of density change. Therefore the opposition
from homeowners within our entire County Island area should be given the most weight.
It should also take into account the following;
The Owners of Parcels ‐ 210‐10‐008B ‐ 210‐10‐008D ‐ 210‐10‐008F ‐ 210‐10‐008G ‐ should have NO VOICE in this development as
they have already been strong armed into selling out to the developer
The Owners of The Bungalows at Norterra should also have NO VOICE Parcels 210‐10‐027A , 210‐10‐031A, 210‐10‐020D, 210‐1‐
=020C, 210‐10‐010
And both Developers should be treated as hostile voices as they are supporting each other in their bids to effect unalterable life
changing events within our land‐locked County Island.
The majority of the Parcels within our boundaries ( 19th Ave‐Jomax‐CAP‐Happy Valley) are Owned and Occupied Homes built within
the constraints of Maricopa County R‐43 Zoning. Based upon Documents published over the Years by the Deer Valley Planning
Commission, we had every reason to expect our area would remain as is (even if the City of Phoenix successfully annexed us all) . We
understand there is a need for housing, buy there is a need for all types of housing and anything built of the vacant lands within our
boundaries should be with that in mind. Multi Family dwelling is not transitional to R‐43. Single Family Homes on no less than .33
acres could be seen as transitional. It might also be seen as quite desirable to those who would prefer not to live in high density
developments.
There have been statements by the Developers and some Planning Staff that would imply the residents of our area do not really care
as we haven’t been vocal enough or “organized” in our opposition to these Developments. Please keep in mind that especially over
the last 2 years life has become very busy and stressful for many many people. None of us are being paid to sit in these meetings
over and over again, it is difficult to even keep up with any information as written letters are not sent to each of us as homeowners,
signs are installed with no dates, then dates, then dates that change AND we are having to OPPOSE (2) developments side by side
that both want the same outcome AT THE SAME TIME !! It may not seem like it to you but we are trying our best to show you with
the resources and time that we have. I have spent many of my days off work speaking with and trying to compose coherent and to
the point letters. I don’t find that easy as I am a long winded person (I am aware) but I am also passionate and find it difficult to be
anything else when we are speaking of losing what we have spent our lives building.
Phoenix is in need of ALL TYPES of housing and our perimeter has already been subjected to higher density developments, now you
want to come directly INTO our small “Island area” with even higher density allowances. I cannot comprehend how that can be
defined as Transitional. Just one of these developments will increases the current population by probably more than 300 %. We
implore you to protect those that need protecting and VOTE NO to these changes
Respectfully
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85085
Page1 602
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning
Application Z-48-21-1 (Lumara PUD) - Approximately 270 Feet North of the
Northeast Corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (Ordinance G-6958)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-48-21-
1 and rezone the site from C-O/M-O (Commercial Office/Major Office option) and
Maricopa County RU-43 (Pending S-1) (Pending Ranch or Farm Residence District) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential. This is a companion
case and must be heard following GPA-DV-2-21-1.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O/M-O and RU-43 (Maricopa County)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Sept. 9,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 9,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional and modified stipulation, by a vote of 6-2.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 13, 2022.
Location
Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road.
Council District: 1
Page 603
Parcel Addresses: 25255 N. 19th Ave.; and 1734, 1737, 1745 and 1748 W. Desert
Hollow Drive.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 604
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-48-21-1) FROM C-O/M-O (COMMERCIAL
OFFICE/MAJOR OFFICE OPTION) AND MARICOPA COUNTY
RU-43 (PENDING S-1) (MARICOPA COUNTY RU-43, PENDING
RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 13.48-acre site located approximately 270
feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road in a portion of
Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-O/M-O” (Commercial Office/Major Office option) and
“Maricopa County RU-43 (Pending S-1)” (Maricopa County RU-43, Pending Ranch or
Farm Residence District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 605
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street
Section. An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape
area is required
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards
table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th
Avenue. The median shall be designed to provide full movement
(north/south/east/west) at 19th Avenue and Desert Hollow Drive, as approved
by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the
Desert Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 606
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 607
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 608
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-48-21-1
Parcel No. 1 Per Deed 20060434557 (APN 210-10-030B):
Lots 39, Section 6, 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.
Parcel No. 2 Per Deed 20060434557 (APN 210-10-023A):
Lots 43, Section 6, 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.
Parcel No. 3 Per Deed 20180399909 (APN 210-10-008F):
Lot 40, Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
Except the North 330 feet of the East 165 feet thereof, which said Lot 40 is also known
as the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
Except the South half;
Except all coal, oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved in patent from the United
States of America.
Parcel No. 4 Per Deed 200907986 (APN 210-10-008G):
The East 165 Feet of The North 339 Feet of G.L.O. Lot 40 (sometimes referred to as
the west half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter) of Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
An undivided interest in that part of G.L.O. Lot 34 of Section 6, Township 4 North,
Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
described as follows:
Beginning 50 Feet North of the Southwest Corner of said G.L.O. Lot 34;
Thence North 20 Feet;
Thence East 20 Feet;
Page 609
Thence South 20 Feet;
Thence West 20 Feet to the Point Of Beginning;
Except all coal, oil, gas and other minerals as reserved in the patent to the United
States of America, Recorded in Docket 4299, Page 244.
Parcel No. 5 Per Deed Number 20120544055 (APN 210-10-008B):
The Southwest Quarter of Lot 40, Section 6, 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 the Patent.
Parcel No. 6 Per Deed Number 20150160050 (APN 210-10-008D):
The Southeast Quarter of the following described property:
Lot 40, Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Except all the coal, oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved in the patent to said
land.
Page 610
Page 611
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-48-21-1
Lumara PUD
December 7, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee December 9, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: C-O/M-O (5.29 acres) and County RU-43
(Pending S-1) (8.19 acres)
Request To: PUD (13.48 acres)
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow
multifamily residential
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the
northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy
Valley Road
Owner Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant Toll Brothers
Representative Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Commercial, Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce Park)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-DV-2-21-1): Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre
Approximately 70-foot
19th Avenue Major Arterial
east half street
Street Map
Classification
25-foot south half
Desert Hollow Drive Local Street
street
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 proposed Lumara Planned Unit Development (PUD) supports increased intensity by
Page 612
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
proposing multifamily residential that is compatible in scale and intensity with uses in the
surrounding the Happy Valley Road corridor. The development is located in a mixed-use
corridor where nearby properties are multifamily or commercial. The project site is also in
close proximity to a designated employment center. The concentration of people near
employment uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. The requested
PUD will facilitate ongoing investment and development of existing businesses in these
areas.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN: Create new development or redevelopment
that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods and
incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the
residential properties.
The request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial streets and
in close proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley Road corridor. The proposed
development is sensitive to surrounding residential and commercial development, thereby
warranting the reasonable levels of height and density proposed between the Norterra
development to the west and the more rural residential to the east.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The Lumara PUD proposes landscaping around all four sides of the building. A detached
sidewalk along 19th Avenue framed with landscape areas will provide thermal comfort for
pedestrians. The PUD also requires that a minimum of 75 percent of public pedestrian
pathways be shaded.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) North Black Canyon and Deer Valley
Employment Centers – See background item No. 5 below.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See background item No. 8
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See background item No. 9
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See background item No. 10
Zero Waste PHX – See background item No. 11
Housing Phoenix Plan – See background item No. 12
Page 613
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
Vacant and single-family C-O/M-O and County RU-43
On Site
residential (Pending S-1)
Convenience store, retail
South establishments, and self- C-2 and C-2 SP
service storage facility
North (across County RU-43
Desert Hollow Vacant
Drive)
Vacant and Self-service S-1 and C-2 SP
East
storage
West (across Multifamily residential, electrical PUD
19th Avenue) substation, and vacant
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 13.48-acre site located approximately 270 feet north of the
northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road. The request is to rezone
from C-O/M-O (Commercial Office/Major Office Option) and Maricopa County RU-43
(Pending S-1) (Pending Ranch or Farm Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential uses.
2. The subject site consists of six parcels that are under the ownership of Happy Valley
19, LLC, pending the approval of this rezoning request. The site currently contains four
single-family residential homes on the eastern portion, which are located within
unincorporated Maricopa County. An active annexation request, Annexation No. 517,
is pending on this portion of the site and is running concurrently with this rezoning
request. The western portion of the subject site, adjacent to 19th Avenue, was
annexed into the City of Phoenix on January 21, 2006. At that time this portion of the
subject site and the surrounding area vastly consisted of vacant land and large lot
residential uses in the unincorporated Maricopa County site to the east. The current C-
O/M-O zoning designation was established through Rezoning Case No. Z-155-05.
Maricopa County historic aerial imagery indicate the surrounding sites to the west and
south began to develop in approximately 2017. There has been increased
development in the immediate area both at Norterra and along the Interstate 17
corridor.
The proposed PUD will require the developer to provide updated infrastructure as
needed and determined through the Planning and Development Department’s site
development process.
Page 614
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Historic Aerials, Source: Maricopa County Assessor’s
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park).
The proposal is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map
designation, thus a minor General Plan Amendment case (GPA-DV-2-21-1) requesting
a designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre was filed as a companion case
to this request.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation to the north of the subject parcel is
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. To the west, across 19th Avenue, the
General Plan Land Use Map designation is Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce
Park/Business Park/Residential 5 to 10 / 10 to 15 / 15+ dwelling units per acre). The
General Plan Land Use Map designation to the south is Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park). To the east, the General Plan Land Use Map designations are
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce
Park). The existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are depicted in the
graphic below.
Page 615
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Department
Page 616
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES
4. North
The properties to the north of the subject site, which are located within Maricopa
County, are vacant land zoned RU-43.
South
Directly south of the subject site is a one-story gas station and convenience store
zoned C-2 through Rezoning Case No. Z-40-01, commercial retail establishments
zoned C-2 through Rezoning Case No. Z-25-11 and a self-service storage facility zone
C-2 SP through Rezoning Case No. Z-SP-7-16.
East
To the east of the north eastern portion of the site is vacant land zoned S-1 through
Annexation No. 499.
West
West of the subject,
across 19th Avenue, is
a mixed-use
development called
Norterra, which was
zoned PUD through
Rezoning Case No. Z-
3-15.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department
Page 617
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
5. The subject site is located just to the
east of the boundaries of the
Maricopa Association of
Governments designated North
Black Canyon employment center
and just to the north and east of the
city designated Deer Valley Major
Employment Center.
A mix of housing types are
encouraged in and around
employment centers and
commercial corridors. The North
Black Canyon employment center
profile provided by the City of
Phoenix Community and Economic
Development Department identifies
this corridor as having
a mix of workers in the current Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix
labor pool that mirrors the metro Planning and Development Department
area with a solid base of management
as well as sales, clerical and administrative personnel. Workers in the North Black
Canyon area are also well educated. Providing additional residential options in close
proximity to the nearby office spaces in this rapidly growing area will add to the
sustainability of the established employment center and the Norterra area overall.
The site is located near two major arterials streets. An existing bus stop and bus
stop pad is located on the east side of 19th Avenue just to the south of the site. A
The area surrounding the subject site has seen a significant amount of investment in
the last 10 years. This investment has positioned the area between Jomax Road
and north of the Deer Valley Airport as a corridor for mixed-use, industrial, commerce
park and multifamily residential development.
PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The 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 writes a document proposing standards and guidelines that are tailored to the
context of a site on a case by case basis.
Where the Lumara PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions shall be applied.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in the
attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped November 22, 2021. The
Page 618
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
proposed standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that
continues enhancement along 19th Avenue for a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative lists multifamily residential as the only permitted use, in
addition to temporary uses. A maximum of 470 residential dwelling units are permitted
within the boundaries of the PUD.
Conceptual Site Plan
The development
proposes a primary and
secondary access
points along 19th
Avenue. The project
proposes two 49-foot
tall multifamily buildings
with surface parking.
There are three amenity
courtyard areas
proposed, which are
reserved as private
common open space.
One is located in the
outdoor courtyard near
the building main
entrance and the other
two are located in the
eastern building. There
are also several smaller
structures containing
living units around the
site as well as covered
surface parking
canopies. 19th
Avenue will contain an Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Collaborative Design Studio
enhanced streetscape
with a minimum five-foot detached sidewalk framed by landscape areas that will
include trees, shrubs, and live ground cover.
Page 619
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Development Standards
The following is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
Maximum Residential Unit
Count: Maximum Dwellings 470 dwelling units
Maximum Density 34.90 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
Minimum Building Setbacks From Property Line
North (Desert Hollow Drive) 10 feet
North (Internal Property Line) 105 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 60 feet
East (Internal Property Line) 59 feet
West (19th Avenue) 62 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 59 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North (Desert Hollow Drive) 10 feet
North (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
East (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
West (19th Avenue) 20 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
Maximum Building Height 49 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent of total net site area
Minimum Open Space 15 percent of total gross site area
The PUD Development Narrative proposed a maximum height of 49 feet. The current
entitlements on the western half of the site, C-O/M-O, allows a maximum height of 56
feet. The S-1 zoning district allows a maximum height of 30 feet. The proposed
building height is based on the aforementioned site characteristics and an attempt to
be consistent with the building height of approved projects in the area. The maximum
approved height for Norterra, across 19th Avenue, is 70 feet. The proposed building
height would act as a transition between the more intense Norterra development on
the west side of 19th Avenue and the large lot rural residential in the unincorporated
Maricopa County island to the east of the subject site.
Page 620
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Open Space Plan, Source: Collaborative Design Studio
The lot coverage proposed for the project is 50 percent. The additional lot coverage
beyond a typical multifamily project is offset by a generous open space standard of a
minimum of 15 percent and is consistent with other similar projects in the corridor. The
proposed 19th Avenue (western) building setback is 62 feet with a 20-foot landscape
setback.
Page 621
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes landscaping along
all sides of the development. The
Development Narrative requires a
minimum 20-foot wide landscape
setback be provided along the 19th
Avenue street frontage. Furthermore,
the landscape setbacks along the
streets shall incorporate 2-inch, 3-inch,
and 4-inch caliper trees, 5 five-gallon
shrubs and 50 percent live ground
cover.
As stipulated, the streetscape along
19th Avenue will include a minimum
five-foot wide detached sidewalk with
a minimum thirteen-foot wide
landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb. This is
comparable to other recently approved
projects in the area. The landscaping
will provide for a pedestrian-friendly
environment with 75 percent shade at
maturity along the public sidewalks
and 50 percent shade along private Conceptual Landscape Plan, Source:
pedestrian pathways. Collaborative Design Studio
Parking Standards
The proposal
requires a minimum
amount of parking
per unit in addition
to unreserved visitor
parking. In addition,
the PUD proposes a
drop off and pick up
location for ride
share services.
Parking Standards, Source: Snell & Wilmer
The PUD also proposes a minimum of
0.25 bicycle spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces which will comply with
Section 1307.H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Page 622
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Fences/Walls
All site fences and walls will be consistent with Section 703.A of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Lighting Plan
All lighting will be consistent with the standards of Section 704 (Environmental
Performance Standards) and Section 507 Tab. A of the Zoning Ordinance and Section
23-100 of the City Code.
Design Guidelines and Standards
The Development Narrative includes design standards that promote pedestrian
circulation on and around the site. The graphic below illustrates the proposed
pedestrian network for the site.
Design standards ensure that the building Pedestrian Circulation Plan,
Source: Biltform Architecture
facade will contain 15 percent glazing, 10
percent cement board, 55 percent plaster and
4 percent metal railings. Elevations of the building will provide one private balcony per
unit. All building elevations will have four-sided architecture, which results in visual
interest. The final elevations and building plans submitted to the City will incorporate
the provisions outlined in the development narrative and shall follow the Design
Guidelines of Section 507.Tab A of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Page 623
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
The landscape
design shall
have a
uniformed
streetscape
design and a
uniform
perimeter
design. Several
residential
amenities are
also proposed,
which are outlined below. Conceptual Elevations, Source: The Hampton Group
Amenities
The PUD proposes amenities intended for use by residents and guests to include a
clubhouse, fitness center, swimming pool and/or spa with at least three of the
following:
• Lounge deck
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Water features
• Barbeque grills
• Fire features
• Seating nodes
• Trellis areas
Signage
The proposed sign standards shall comply with Section 705 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate sustainability
principals including drought-tolerant landscaping, LED lighting, and recycling
receptacles. The project also proposes retaining established trees where possible, as
well as the utilization of smart controller drip irrigation.
PUD Compatibility to Zoning Ordinance
All property boundaries adjacent to public streets will include enhanced landscaping
with five-foot wide detached sidewalks. Shade at 75 percent coverage at maturity will
be provided to increase pedestrian comfort and activity. The PUD comparative
Page 624
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
standards table shows that the landscape setback provided is equal to the R-5
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and require that 50 percent of trees be a
minimum of two-inch caliper, 25 percent be three-inch caliper and 25 percent be four-
inch caliper.
Phasing
The project will be constructed in one phase.
Additional Requirements
The applicant will be required to submit an updated development narrative after City
Council approval reflecting all required updates in the final draft. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1 a.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
8. 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. In addition, a vision in the master plan is to raise awareness by
leading by example. The proposal includes landscaped pedestrian walkways, open
space areas and greater planting standards than otherwise required by the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an accessible, safe,
and connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. There are proposed detached sidewalks along 19th
Avenue and pathways throughout the site which provide a safer and more comfortable
pedestrian experience.
10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan also supports options for both short-and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The proposal requires bicycle parking spaces be provided on the site.
Bicycle racks shall consist of an inverted-U or other decorative design and installed per
the requirements of Section 1307. H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
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
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The provision of recycling is addressed in the PUD narrative.
Page 625
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
12. 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 contributing to a variety
housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using
vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
This proposal will help to meet the goals of the housing plan by increasing the number
of available dwelling units for existing and new residents, while diversifying the types of
housing in the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time the staff report was written, staff had received 48 letters of concern.
Concerns include a perceived increase in traffic, building height, character of area
changing, population density increases, loss of commercial spaces in area,
overabundance of multifamily projects in area, infrastructure capacity concerns and
size of proposed buildings. Staff has also received 171 letters of support. Support
comments include a welcomed enhancement to the area, the proposed project will
enhance and maintain a high quality of living in the area, the proposed project will
bring in a built-in customer base to existing commercial uses in the Norterra area and
Happy Valley Road corridor, the project will replace an underutilized and blighted site,
reduction in traffic and the project will enhance aesthetics by providing lush
landscaping and a pedestrian friendly experience.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all
streets within and adjacent to the development be constructed with all mandatory
elements, the developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median along
19th Avenue for the full limits of the project, a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk and 13-
foot-wide landscape area located between the back of curb and
Sidewalk along 19th Avenue. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until a
Traffic Impact Study/Statement is reviewed and approved by the City. Further, access
control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and Desert Hollow Drive
alignment. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1.b., 2, 3, 4 and 5.
15. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has noted that the site is within the Deer
Valley Municipal Airport traffic pattern airspace, therefore, the developer shall provide
notice to prospective purchasers of the existence and operation characteristics of the
Deer Valley Airport and shall provide documentation that Form 7460-1 from the FAA.
The requirements are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 and 7.
16. The Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems with this case
Page 626
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
17. The Public Transit Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all pedestrian
paths and drive aisles shall be constructed with decorative pavers, stamped, or colored
concrete or other pavement treatments that contrast with adjacent surfaces and be
shaded by 75 percent with vegetative shade at maturity. These are addressed in the
development narrative.
18. The Water Services Department has noted the property has existing water and sewer
mains that can potentially serve the proposed development. However, there is
potential need to up size existing water and sewer infrastructure mains so that any
remodels or new buildings will be able to meet domestic and fire code requirements.
OTHER
19. 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. 8.
20. 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 site is located at the intersection of two arterial streets and in close proximity to an
employment center west of 19th Avenue. The proposed standards in the PUD provide a
transition from more intense development on the west side of 19th Avenue to
undeveloped property to the east of the subject site.
2. The proposed development will provide diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to designated employment centers.
3. The Development Narrative contains standards that exceed ordinance requirements
including enhanced setbacks along three sides of the site as well as enhanced
landscape standards.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date information on
Page 627
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street Section.
An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk
is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape area is required
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th Avenue,
for the full limits of the project, as approved by the Planning and Development and
Street Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the Desert
Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 628
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Writer
David Simmons
12/07/2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Community Correspondence (221 pages)
Lumara PUD Development Narrative date stamped November 22, 2021
Page 629
RL
E ZT
RT PA RSONS RD
C O R
EL KD
AR
ONP
N I
U L
TR
D
F IE L
KIN
S-1
MARICOPA
OW DR
RT HO LL
Z-83-06
COUNTY
D ESE
19TH DR
T
VE
HA
19TH LN
C-O/M-O *
19TH AVE
Z-155-05
PUD * S-1
ANX 499
R
TRZ-3-15
L
TE
OT Z-3-A-15
TR
C-2 SP *
17TH AVE
Z-SP-7-16
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 Z-17-09
S-1
ANX 301
ANX 246 Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-140-01
HAPPY VALLEY RD
CP/GCP *
CP/BP
ANX 301 ANX 193
C-2 *
CP/GCP * C-2 and/or
CP/GCP
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-28-00 ANX 222
Z-75-06
CP/BP ANX 193 ANX 301 Z-122-00
Z-91-00 ANX 235
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-122-00
ANX 246
S-1
IMiles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Z-48-21
PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07
DEER VALLEY DR
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD
19TH AVE
I - 17
35TH AVE
51ST AVE 43RD AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Toll Brothers
FROM:
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
8/9/2021 C-O/M-O ( 5.29 a.c.)
Z-48-21 REVISION DATES:
County RU-43 (Pending S-1) ( 8.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
13.48 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 13.48 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O/M-O, County RU-43 (Pending S-1) N/A, 8 N/A, N/A
PUD 470 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 630
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-48-21.mxd
RL
E ZT
RT PA RSONS RD
C O R
EL KD
AR
ONP
N I
U L
TR
D
F IE L
KIN
S-1
MARICOPA
OW DR Z-83-06
RT HO LL COUNTY
D ESE
19TH DR
T
VE
HA
19TH LN
C-O/M-O *
19TH AVE
Z-155-05
PUD * S-1
ANX 499
R
TRZ-3-15
L
TE
OT Z-3-A-15
TR
C-2 SP *
17TH AVE
Z-SP-7-16
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 Z-17-09
S-1
ANX 301
ANX 246 Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-140-01
HAPPY VALLEY RD
CP/GCP *
CP/BP
C-2 and/or
ANX 301 ANX 193
C-2 *
CP/GCP * CP/GCP
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-75-06 Z-122-00 Z-28-00 ANX 222
CP/BP ANX 193 ANX 301 Z-91-00 ANX 235
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-122-00
ANX 246 Maricopa County Assessor's Office
S-1
IMiles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Z-48-21
PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD
19TH AVE
I - 17
35TH AVE
51ST AVE 43RD AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Toll Brothers
FROM:
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
8/9/2021 C-O/M-O ( 5.29 a.c.)
Z-48-21 REVISION DATES:
County RU-43 (Pending S-1) ( 8.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
13.48 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 13.48 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O/M-O, County RU-43 (Pending S-1) N/A, 8 N/A, N/A
PUD 470 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 631
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-48-21.mxd
Toll Brothers
Lumara
Zoning Group
Nick Wood, Esq
Attorney
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP
Sr. Urban Planner
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
Taylor N. Moran
162 Letters of Support
Urban Planner
Paola Jaramillo
Assistant Planner Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
Page 641
Page 642
Page 643
Page 644
Page 645
Page 646
Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
Page 650
Page 651
Page 652
Page 653
Page 654
Page 655
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
Page 659
Page 660
Page 661
Page 662
Page 663
Page 664
Page 665
Page 666
Page 667
Page 668
Page 669
Page 670
Page 671
Page 672
Page 673
Page 674
Page 675
Page 676
Page 677
Page 678
Page 679
Page 680
Page 681
Page 682
Page 683
Page 684
Page 685
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Page 689
Page 690
Page 691
Page 692
Page 693
Page 694
Page 695
Page 696
Page 697
Page 698
Page 699
Page 700
Page 701
Page 702
Page 703
Page 704
Page 705
Page 706
Page 707
Page 708
Page 709
Page 710
Page 711
Page 712
Page 713
Page 714
Page 715
Page 716
Page 717
Page 718
Page 719
Page 720
Page 721
Page 722
Page 723
Page 724
Page 725
Page 726
Page 727
Page 728
Page 729
Page 730
Page 731
Page 732
Page 733
Page 734
Page 735
Page 736
Page 737
Page 738
Page 739
Page 740
Page 741
Page 742
Page 743
Page 744
Page 745
Page 746
Page 747
Page 748
Page 749
Page 750
Page 751
Page 752
Page 753
Page 754
Page 755
Page 756
Page 757
Page 758
Page 759
Page 760
Page 761
Page 762
Page 763
Page 764
Page 765
Page 766
Page 767
Page 768
Page 769
Page 770
Page 771
Page 772
Page 773
Page 774
Page 775
Page 776
Page 777
Page 778
Page 779
Page 780
Page 781
Page 782
Page 783
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 790
Page 791
Page 792
Page 793
Page 794
Page 795
Page 796
David O Simmons
From: Aakash Trivedi
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Support Email for Toll Brothers Happy Valley Road
Hi there,
My name is Aakash and I am the general manager of the Best Western Plus Executive Residency Phoenix North Happy
Valley.
I am giving my support for the toll brothers community project proposed at 19th ave and happy valley rd.
2108 W Whispering Wind Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Zoning Case : # Z-48-21-1 ITEMS 3 AND 4
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
www.bestwesternhappyvalley.com [bestwesternhappyvalley.com]
www.comfortinnfountainhills.com [comfortinnfountainhills.com]
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential
and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the
intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Page 797
David O Simmons
From: Stacy B
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:33 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Re: Case # Z-48-21-1 items 4 and 5
Smartstop self storage
1740 W. Happy Valley Rd.
Phoenix, AZ. 85085
623-810-9799
Have met with Toll Brothers rep. and support this project. I will try to make the meeting on the 9th.
Thank you,
Stacy Browning SM
Page 798
David O Simmons
From: Grant Helgeson
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:28 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning Case # Z48-21-1 | Westland Properties 9/20/21
Attachments: Toll at Norterra Aerial.pdf; 210914 Lumara Renderings.pdf
Importance: High
David,
Good afternoon. Hope your Monday is going well. My name is Grant Helgeson and I’m the owner and one of the
professional land brokers here at the Westland Properties Group in Scottsdale. This email is to voice our support for the
Multi-Family rezoning efforts for the 12.23-acre parcel near 19th Ave & Happy Valley area in North Phoenix by Toll
Brothers Multi-Family Division. The multi-family housing project for this area would bring much needed housing options in
the luxury residence arena that are well-designed and resident friendly. Toll Brothers, who is the builder for this project
provides creative designs that are thoughtfully planned and incorporates the surrounding neighborhood needs and
considerations in every project they build.
Grant D. Helgeson
Westland Properties Group
8141 E. Indian Bend Rd, Suite 103
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
tel: 480-443-8570
fax: 480-443-3736
mobile: 602-762-1556
direct: 480-675-5149
email: grant@westland-properties.com
Page 799
Page 800
David O Simmons
From: Kim Cocuzza
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 7:44 PM
To: David O Simmons; jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov
Subject: GPA-DV_2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I would like to speak at the upcoming meetings regarding the zoning change in our R43 neighborhood.
My husband and I are extremely concerned about the changes in our rural lifestyle. The amount of cars that
will start near us each day if these projects are allowed will increase the declining air quality we have to breathe
each day, we bought here 3 years ago to be in a rural neighborhood, high rise, high density projects threaten
this and will cause massive traffic. We can't even get out of our area because of how congested 19th Avenue is.
It is dangerous to get out and make a left on 19th Ave from Yearling road and sometimes you have to sit there
for 10 minutes to get out. Please have the staff read our message and let us speak.
Thank you,
Kimberly Cocuzza To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Realtor
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
480.616.1675 |
KimCocuzzaRealty@gmail.com | aareglobal.com
[aareglobal.com] | aare.tv [aare.tv]
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
Making dreams come true since 2002!
Page 801
David O Simmons
From: Marjorie McCaw
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 11:18 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-3-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1647 W Briles Road for the last 4 years. I am writing in
regards to the Toll Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1.
I would also like to put on record my opposition to the rezoning and Toll Brothers proposed build. I will
be short and succinct as possible.
Firstly, I moved to this area with a certainty about our community. This proposed change in zoning and
subsequent proposed apartment build take that certainty away. There is no longer the minimum 1acre
lot per residence, the traffic, which is already significant, will be overbearing. This rezoning and build is
not consistent with the existing immediate neighborhood. No where in our little island is there a 4 story
complex. We are a small neighborhood of single family homes with a few businesses on Happy Valley
and 19th, of which none are multiple story complexes of this size. This change takes away the certainty
we expected when we moved into this neighborhood.
Secondly, I believe the current zoning is for medical and office buildings. An apartment brings no
needed asset to our community. Medical and commercial offices bring a needed service to our area, an
asset to our community and surrounding area. We support the development that adds a needed asset
to our community and the proposed change in development is not it.
Thirdly, there are many homes in the Happy Valley Island that have livestock and horses. The increase in
traffic and noise pollution will without question have an effect on those animals. The horses will not do
well with this densely populated development. In addition, The residence at the proposed apartment
build will be exposed to the smell of manure from the area and horse flies and undoubtable will be
making complaints to the city.
Fourthly, I moved here with the understanding of the current zoning. I accepted that. Now it is being
proposed to change that against my opposition and others. Do we as a community not have a say in the
rezoning that occurs in our community for something that directly affects us? We are not asking for
change on this zone only to honor the current zoning and honor the certainty we were granted when we
moved into the neighborhood.
Fifthly, there are plenty of other sights in the surrounding area for apparent complexes to be built to
support the housing needs. I don’t see a justification for this build on this particular site when other
areas are available to support an apparent complex. To support this build is to ignore our wishes to
preserve the community in which we live in. The current zoning does not support the Toll Bothers
proposed build and the zoning should remain as is for development. That has clearly been the voice of
the immediate neighborhood.
Sixthly and extremely important, this will WITHOUT QUESTION lower our property values.
Page 802
I sincerely hope that the voices of our community are heard and respected. We love our neighborhood
and want to preserve it and keep the current zoning. The change in zoning and apartment complex is
not way consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Please add my comments to the meeting. I will be at the meeting on December 9th.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Marjorie McCaw
Page 803
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:09 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Concerning GPA-DV-2-21-1 Z-48-21-1 &. Z-2021051
Hello,
My name is James Whatley and I’m writing to have my statements put on file and to register to speak at the upcoming
meetings this Thursday for both projects involving the area north of Happy Valley road along 19th Ave all the way to
Parsons rd.
I am aresident and relative of one of the first homes built in this county island. These new planned apartment and
“bungalow” housing projects do not fit in with the original character of our neighborhood.
The residents of this county island including myself have gotten together to fight these new builds and we all are in
agreement that our Zoned R-43 properties need to remain so!
The land connecting to Parsons road is zoned R-43 ( 1 house per acre) and should remain that way. The builder is trying
to build apartments conveniently renamed as “bungalows” . We are only “ok” with one house per acre! This county
island is relatively small and the residents chose to live here because we all enjoy our privacy and our horses and other
large stock animals. We are all connected by private and quiet roads. The families that live here, live off of water
supplied by wells and we all have beautiful homes. We all enjoy our space and the peace and quiet that was
guaranteed to us when we purchased the Character of this area.
The parcel just north of Happy Valley is zoned Commercial Business. Toll Brothers wants to rezone this and build an
original 470 unit apartment complex there. They have accumulated more land so they will want to build even more
units. We are fine with businesses moving in, this area needs more businesses, not more apartments! This area is not
set up nor can it handle the type of development that is trying to move in this area.
These builders are targeting our area thinking they can come in and change the character and life style of this area for
their profit. They can easily go somewhere else in the “city” and obtain land that is already zoned for there needs.
Currently, there are multiple other apartments being built around us. There are more than 5 complexes being built
within a mile radius of our county island. The growth in this area is beyond exponential at this time and this area is not
prepared. All of the main feeder roads around us are 2 lane roads, except for Happy Valley road. There is already a huge
influx of vehicle traffic and and traffic accidents that are occurring everyday, in an area not meant to handle such
growth. Not to mention the excessive noise, light and air pollution that we are experiencing from the already over
burdened surrounding communities. The next thing to get polluted is our ground water that all of us county islanders
rely on to keep our families and our animals alive and healthy.
Please, take my words into consideration during these and all future meetings concerning this area and share these
statements with your colleagues and meeting goers.
Thank you all for your time and understanding in this matter.
Sincerely,
James Whatley
Page 804
Sent from my iPhone
Page 805
David O Simmons
From: Alison McKee
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 1:59 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1, Z-48-21-1
Attachments: Phoenix GPA-DV-2-21-1 Z-48-21-1.pdf
Mr. Simmons,
Please see the attached letter referencing GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1. My husband and I are opposed to the rezoning
and annexation of the property in question located near Happy Valley Rd. & 19th Ave. We are 10 year residents of the
unincorporated, rural community bordering the vacant land that Toll Brothers wishes to develop with a "luxury"
apartment complex. We have created a quaint homestead where we raise livestock and small stock to provide some of
the food our family consumes. We also have horses, and a small herd of donkeys that are our wonderful companions. It
is our wish that the village planning committee keep the zoning as is, as a commercial development on this land will help
to better protect our rural way of life. We are asking for a no vote on the above referenced cases being decided in
tomorrow's meeting. I would appreciate you sharing my letter with the committee and hope to be able to speak at the
meeting tomorrow night.
Kind regards,
Alison McKee
1219 W Parsons Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602-702-3676
Page 806
David O Simmons
From: Laura B
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:48 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Mr Simmons,
I am Laura Bates I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1744 w parsons road. I would like to speak at the Toll
Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-complex.
We bought this property because we were enchanted with the characteristics of the neighborhood. We could
have animals and had a fresh water well! Country living with all the convenience of a city .
We did our homework when purchasing our home and found out the lots across from us were zoned 1 home per acre
like our home. The lot behind (the now KT) was zoned for medical office. This was a buffer zone from the commercial
lot on happy valley.
We did this homework to make certain we would not have an eyesore out our front windows.
The residents have been talking about creating a gated community to eliminate traffic we already see.
At one of the meetings I brought up the traffic and traffic flow. I felt very dismissed. The lady kept saying they did a
traffic study and it was fine. She insisted no one would take a right turn.
We have asked for details of the study and when it was done. No one has seen this yet.
We live there and are saying there is already traffic issues. At times it is difficult for us to safely make a left hand
turn. WE take a right to avoid traffic. It is insulting to have someone dismiss our knowledge. We live with th e increased
traffic.
This will significantly reduce our property value or at least potential buyers. I know I would not buy it had I known I
would have a 3 or 4 story building with hundreds of people coming and going.
There is plenty of more suitable land for this development. Land that home owners know what they will getting, when
they buy.
I hope you can understand our concerns.
Regards,
Laura Bates
Page 807
David O Simmons
From: dave beaver
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:42 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case 2021 051
Dear Mr. Simmons,
My name is David Beaver, residing at 1732 W. Yearling Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85085. This is regarding case
number Z 2021 051. I am opposed to the rezoning and the Toll Brothers project, cases GPA-DV-2-21-1
and Z-48-21-1.
My family have been residents here for 10 years. We enjoy this community. It’s a perfect place to
retire because of the convenience of our daily necessities, such as shopping, pharmacies, eateries, etc.
There are plenty of other properties off Happy Valley where they can develop multi-family zoning and
build apartment complexes. I am not in favor of a re-zoning nor the Toll Brothers multi-family apartment
complex. Please respect our desire to keep this Happy Valley island a single-family community.
Sincerely,
David Beaver
Page 808
David O Simmons
From: Brian Bates
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 PM
To: jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning on parsons rd
I purchased my property at 1744 w pardons rd with the knowledge that the vacant land south of my property was zoned
for homes on 1 acre parcels, I believe r94 or something like that. There was also supposed to be medical offices right
behind the business on happy valley. Changing the zoning now is taking away my certainty of the planning already
realized. We have a lot horse properties and it would be sad to see the city or county destroy that by letting some rich
developer come in and change our livelihoods. Leave the planning the way it was set to be and find more suitable
property to build your high density housing. Thank you and I would also like to speak to you personally. 6233859296
Brian Bates
Sent from my iPhone
Page 809
December 7, 2021
RE: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
District 1: Councilmember Ann O’Brien council.district.1@phoenix.gov.
District 8: Vice Mayor Carlos Garcia council.district.8@phoenix.gov
To All It May Concern;
While we were happy with the staff recognition of the character and land use pattern
of our neighborhood,
[ RE: October 8, 2021 - Proposed: (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) (Residential
15+ du/acre) (13.48 acres)
General Comments: 3. Staff has concerns with proposed height, density and character
of the use proposed. This proposal is out of character with the surrounding area, as
discussed in the pre application meeting. 19th Ave is the dividing line between higher
density and lower density to the east.
4. Not consistent or compatible with character and land use pattern in surrounding
area which is predominantly large lot single-family residential. Lower height, density
and incorporate stepbacks from large lot residential.
5. Staff is not supportive of density proposed.
6. 55 feet is simply too high for this proposal at this location. Staff is not supportive of
the proposed height.
9. Development is close to large lot County residential. Adjust height to be more
consistent with projects in close proximity to large lot single-family residential. 55
foot maximum at highest point furthest from single-family residential is simply too
high.
Page 810
LIST OF USES: Staff recommend going with Residential 15+ on entire site OR lower
density residential.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Page 8 – Incorporate stepbacks in table (add a
stepback exhibit as noted above); Add the development standards table. Still too high
adjacent to large lot residential. Staff is recommending 2 stories from large lot
residential, then up to a maximum of three stores farthest from large lot residential. 3.
Page 8 - The max. units for the PUD is 470 units, which is much too high for the
character of this area. Reduce density significantly as a result of the reduction in
acceptable height for area. 8 – landscape setbacks should match the building setbacks
- why the deviation? Increase landscape setbacks.
Tallest portion of the project should be the absolute farthest from single-family
residential. Proposed height is not supported by staff. Building too tall for character of
area. Staff is not supportive.]
We are disappointed that it did not go further to defend our long term homes and the
overall rural Character of the neighborhood. This “County Island is not filled with all
million dollar homes, We have a very diverse neighborhood, but most strive and are
here for the same reasons. Many have animals that we can only have in a setting such
as ours and many of us have raised Kids to Adulthood in the same family home their
entire lives. There are a multitude of aspects to object to and there are
lifetimes/styles/dreams/realities and more at stake, so I respectfully ask that you
read this slowly, and in its entirety and remember that your decisions really will only
have a lasting effect on those of us who RESIDE within the boundaries of this County
Island that we are trying to defend. Others will never know if they didn't get to live in
an apartment that was never built. (but they might someday get to be a homeowner
with horse privileges and more) That btw being one of the multiple aspects to our
objections. One of the greatest things about the Phoenix metropolitan area is the
diversity of options when it comes to housing. Within the "city" aspects there are
many areas where you can feel/be "rural" and very few big Cities can boast that. We
feel based upon the many promises and analysis over the years that we witnessed and
relied upon while we built our lives, that you have a higher obligation to stand up for
us.
At What Point in time was it decided that Investors get priority over Owner Occupied
Residential entities no matter what.
Page 811
I wish I could be short and to the point, but thats very difficult to do when there are so
many points. I truly am not trying to filibuster your time, but its hard to condense so
many grievances.
We have dealt with and been surrounded by growth for many years now, but this
proposed development will not surround us, they will invade, envelop, and
suffocate us and our animals . They are stepping directly within and chipping away at
our borders which with Certainty would change the overall character of our
Community. It is sad that you would allow that to happen to your constituents. How
long before you start getting complaints because of horses, donkeys bees, etc. But the
density is the biggest issue for us all - why not a small gated community with 1/3 acre
(even better 1/2 acre) homes that would temper and flow very readily into our
community. We are a small landlocked county island with numerous residents that
desire to leave it that way. What right does anyone have to buy Land zoned R-43, and
identified multiple times by government entities as an area that would be retained as
rural, and destroy it's character simply for the fact that it was cheap (compared to
already zoned and appropriate parcels). Over the years we believed what we were
told from the Deer Valley Planning Commission (who we were lead to believe carried
the most weight), multiple times, this area was meant to remain low density , and we
took them at their word.
So to be clear, we have no objections nor issues with people or companies buying
vacant land on the off chance that at some point in their investment lifetime this will
pay off for them. And in some instances that might make sense. Within the boundaries
of our land locked County (partially Phoenix) Island however, this does
not. Therefore WE OBJECT. Parcel sizes to build homes in our area have always (for
decades) required 1.00 acre (or more) of land for (1) single family home. That is how
it should remain as the people who did buy and build in our area relied upon those
decade old reassurances. Many of us invested much more than money in building
homes and helping to maintain this area to retain core amenities that most people
were seeking when they chose to build their lives here.
We personally bought our land in the 1970's and built our homes in the late 1980's,
we did not ask for the "progress" that came to this area in the form of businesses,
traffic etc. but we also weren't naive enough to think that we could stop many aspects
of it. But all indications had still been (until most recently) that most business entities
would be minor and only allowed on the South side of HV and High Density
Residential wasn't even on the radar. It was not until quite recently that residential
was even a part of that mix and now we are being bombarded ( RE: Maricopa County
Case # Z2021051 Bungalows) at a very rushed and increased pace. Development Reps
have been canvasing our neighborhood, misrepresenting the desires of the majority
and doing their best to strong arm and coerce support for something that has NO
BENEFITS to the neighborhood, only to the developers themselves.
Page 812
Most all agree we would actually prefer the commercial zoning in place for this parcel
allowing for medical and small businesses from which the area could benefit from
local business entities and Dr's, with minimal traffic and increased crime risks. These
"Developers" are making a conscious choice to purchase land that is not zoned
compatible with their original intent, obviously with the belief that they can buy their
way in, which was obviously cheaper than buying land already zoned for their intent
purposes, as that land is currently in abundance throughout this area. Instead they
are choosing to encroach upon us, hoping to plow and bully their way around to get
their way. We implore you please do not allow this to happen.
We were lulled into believing that the land-locked area we occupied would be mainly
immune to density changes for several reasons. First and foremost, I'll site the DV
Planning Committee again (which we attended many a meeting over the years ) and
their written assurances of 19th Ave being the dividing line for maintaining the
existing low density profile to the East of 19th Ave, along with the County zoning plan
of R-43 and by 2 other facts. that I believe should also still play very big into this
decision by you; 19th Ave Northbound from Happy Valley Rd (HV) is essentially a
road to nowhere, as is HV Eastbound from 19th Ave. These 2 facts also led us to
believe that there was never an intention on increasing density onto roads that can
not handle the traffic increase that comes with it, even with modifications.
So please consider these overall traffic aspects carefully;
Happy Valley Rd. on our South Boundary, is a road to and from nowhere, and I can't
imagine that ever changing (ooops there I ago again) due to the topography east of 7th
St. and the fact that homes are built directly in the path where HV comes out on Cave
Creek Rd.
Our West Boundary, 19th Ave northbound is also a road to nowhere. At Jomax it
ceases to exist and all traffic heading west is mainly bound for the extensive SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENTS that are in the other basically landlocked areas
of Jomax, Norterra Parkway and North Valley Parkway. 19th Ave turns into North
Valley Parkway which within less than 2 miles also has Norterra Parkway meld into it
which then in approximately one mile ceases to exist completely as a road that can
handle "traffic", so encouraging anyone along that route is ludicrous as I'm sure most
residents in that area will agree. Very few businesses or high density developments
exist in that area and yet the traffic is already extensive due to the physical size of the
area and the lack of direct access from the east, west and North sides of this area.
USAA's development was difficult enough for our R-43 zoning to have to accept but at
least this was tempered by mainly single family homes with easy access to the main
Roads such as Happy Valley (which holds mainly businesses) , Jomax or Norterra
Parkway, again mainly businesses until Jomax. The small stretch of 19th Avenue
from Happy Valley to Jomax is already way overloaded with traffic during peak hours,
and that wouldn't change even if they expanded that section to 4 lanes. On weekday
mornings, southbound traffic coming from North Valley onto 19th is ridiculous and
Page 813
has a high amount of speeders and red light runners. This is already soon to change as
Union Park will soon be building its Northside which will greatly increase that 19th
Avenue traffic once again. The only saving grace we (and you) currently have is the
fact that the East side of 19th Ave between HV & Jomax are all single family residences
on minimum 1.00 acre parcels. There are NO businesses and NO high density
residences. If you change that demographic, you will create an even more dangerous
traffic pattern than what already exists.
The two developments are requesting extreme changes to the current density
requirements, and neither one will have ANY access in or out other than that onto
19th Avenue and (as proposed in this development) couple that with the traffic from
Union Parks access to 19th Ave. In the mornings it is already impossible to turn onto
19th Ave south.
Union Park has direct access to Happy Valley Road, that helps with the traffic in and
out of the Southern part of that development but as they also have access to 19th
Avenue, traffic is generated at Parsons Rd. The same will happen with their Northern
part of development now underway, they will have access to Jomax (which will create
another traffic nightmare for those neighborhoods to the North, but again will also
have access to 19th Avenue which will generate more traffic at Briles Rd.. Adding any
more density developments that require access from 19th Ave between Happy Valley
and Jomax is insane. There has been reliance for many years within our
neighborhood of large (minimum 1.00 acre parcels) and the Deer Valley planning
commission has always identified our little triangular County Island to retain that low
density zoning as anything else would be a major disruption on many many levels.
To encourage any more traffic onto this pathway (19th between HV and Jomax ) to go
North or south, or onto HV (east of 19th) is disruptive to ALL of the residents located
within the boundaries of Happy Valley, 7th St., Norterra Parkway, up to Dixleta on the
North side, not just our Island.
Essentially we feel it is critical to reject ANY High Density development (or any
Commercial development that would attract a high traffic volume) on the East side of
19th Avenue between Happy Valley and Jomax - If we had to accept some reduction in
the R-43 footprint again the preference would be a minimum .5 acre (.33 if pushed)
single home footprint to blend in with the existing 1.00 acre parcels. There is still
plenty of money for developers to make from that.
ADDED to the above nightmares, If you Approve this request, there are several other
things I can state with certainty that I hope you consider carefully, as we also have
vested interests in this area;
The Home we just finally paid off after 33 years will immediately DECREASE in
value and likely continue that path.
Page 814
The lifestyle that we worked so hard to achieve and maintain and enjoy will be now
LOST just as we are starting our retirement years. The homes our children were
raised in and hoped they might raise their children in will be no more.
The livestock/animals/fowl we have will likely be in more danger now from humans
than any other natural predators we currently have. These residents will be right up
against properties with horses/livestock, flocks, hives etc, and who knows how
anyone offended by the environment that comes with that will react.
You didn't do this to Sunburst Farms, You didn't do this to Western Meadows, This
wasn’t done by Peoria to Longhorn Ranch or Thunderbird North, please DO NOT do
this to our small landlocked County Island. Allowing ANY developments within our
borders with a density greater than our current zoning is a death sentence to the
lifestyles we have carefully cultivated and sacrificed for over the years.
Our small land-locked County Island has always allowed for us to maintain that rural
lifestyle that has been here since we bult in 1988, we've watched the Walmarts come,
the Circle K's and even a large residential development, yet none of those even came
close to threatening our rural lifestyle the way these two proposed developments are
now doing
Respectfully and with Hope that for once the little guy can win on principal alone, not
through drained bank accounts as obviously we don't have the $$'s to fight these
battles, just simple faith that sometimes the bigger picture can win out.
If you read this to the end (and I apologize for my repetitiveness ) I greatly appreciate
your time and consideration, I know I’m long winded (ask my daughter about my
texts!!) when I’m passionate about an Issue and as this one really determines our
whole future and I wanted you to take a great many things into account when making
this decision.
I am unable to attend this current meeting as I will be working so I’d appreciate this
being entered into the record if you would.
Laurel & Richard Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 815
Page 816
David O Simmons
From: rusty hill
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 3:02 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Meeting Delay on Purposed Zoning Change
Sir, My name is Richard J. Hill Jr.
and I go by Rusty. My address is 1808 West Parsons Rd. This is concerning the proposed zoning change from R-43 (1
house per acre) to R-2 (Apt. buildings), application #'s Z-48-21-1 and Z2021051, I am asking for a delay on the vote of
the committee. I just received the updated time on the Z2021051 sign,Monday 12/6/21. Up until this time there was no
time listed. I checked regularly. I have not received any notices by mail from anyone except the contractors
lawyers. Which are conflicting with the Notice sign. I am having problems with my computer and have to go to
neighborhood meetings to catch the contractors fabricated fiasco about "luxury shoe boxes". I am in the process of
Writing a detailed letter that I will send to you and everyone involved.. Once
again... This is a request for a delay on the vote at the Deer Valley Planning committee meeting at 6PM, 12/9/21. I
found out about this meeting, monday at our neighborhood meeting and need more time before the vote. Please
consider my request
in the name of fair play. Just one more note in case my request is denied........ The proposed entrance and exit to the
apt's on 2021051 is directly in front of my house. NOT!!!
To help protect y our priv acy ,
Micro so ft Office prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avast.com [avast.com]
[avast.com]
Page 817
David O Simmons
From: Travis Burke
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 8:03 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Simmons
I live at 26215 N. 17th drive Phoeniz az 85085 in the county island.
My wife and I specially sought out this area because of its unique zoning of 1 acre parcels per home. This ensures that
the area will remain large estates and not be overrun with town homes or apartments or even cookie cutter new builds
you see all over the valley.
We are totally against the rezoning of the county land to allow these types of apartments.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter
Travis Burke - Owner
NurtureScape Landscape Company
Cell- 602.621.3355
Nurturescapeaz.com
ROC 331593
Page 818
David O Simmons
From: Valerie King
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:38 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Cases
Dear Mr. Simmons
My name is Valerie King, and my address is: 1732 W. Yearling Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85085. I am writing you regarding case
number Z 2021 051. I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and the Toll Brothers proposed development, (cases GPA-
DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1).
We searched 3-1/2 years for our ideal location for our new home. The major perks that stood out for us in moving to
this community is the single family neighborhood and country style living. After 10 years of living here, it breaks my
heart to think that there could be a rezoning to make my beautiful neighborhood a multi-family living space. This is
where I chose to retire and I don’t want to be forced to move anywhere else.
There are plenty of other properties for the Toll Brothers to build on outside of our little Happy Valley island. Please let
our voices be heard so we can keep our neighborhood to a single-family not multi-family zoning. Respectfully, don’t let
the rich developers squash the little folks that live in this single family community.
Smiles,
Valerie King
Page 819
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns Office
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:22 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z48-21-1 and gpa-dv2-21-1
Dear City of Phoenix, Deer Valley Council Members, Maricopa County Council Members, Mayor Gallego,
My name is Julie Burns. I live one house and block from the numerous high density planned development’s in our area.
We have met with Toll Brothers attorney’s several times. We dispute the traffic report. They want to characterize the
residence as “not for development,” “not for building,” “not for infrastructure,” “not wanting change,” “Not knowing
how good this would be for our neighborhood,” “not knowing what’s good for the community, City of Phoenix or State
of Arizona.” Let me tell you who we are i n your community, City of Phoenix, and State of Arizona. We are your business
owners, entrepreneurs and hard workers that depend on the construction economy.
WHO WE ARE:
We are your Registered Nurses, BSN’s who take care of our community, your Anesthetist who makes sure you wake up
during a procedure, your landscape construction company to give great outdoor spaces owner, your realtor to sell you
homes, your granite slab installation company owner, your drinking water purifier owner, your plumber owner, your
electrician owner, TWO well drill owners, TWO pest control company owners, TWO Turf Paradise Race track owners and
trainers, your FedEX driver, your tree trimer owner, your landscape maintenance owner, your Post Master who delivers
your mail, your custom car restoration owner/Professional Race Care Driver, your Professional World Wakesurfer, your
cheerleader coach, your school teacher, your retired Veteran’s who bought the land when first offered by the
government, your Veteran’s widower, your marshal arts studio owner, assisted living home owner, your high level
corporate professional for a publicly traded company, ect
So, if you think we can’t do change, let me tell you what we have been through and changes made to make it through
the Great Recession, COVID, and now inflation. We want and need change, development, growth and population for our
lively hoods. However, the above neighbors are united in preserving the character of our neighborhood.
KEEP CURRENT ZONING
First and foremost, I want to say I’m sorry to our four neighbors (zoned R-43) that are under escrow with the developer.
I do not intend to do them harm by opposing the high density development. However, maybe I’m doing you a favor. By
now, you see that you can not buy a home similar to our area for any price. Not even one million dollars… I’m sorry to
go against your wishes. However, I will not throw in the towel for our lifestyle and character of our neighborhood.
Now, to express to DV staff my desire to deep the current zoning Medical offices and General Comerance (5 ac) and R- 43
(10 ac) just how it is. I don’t think the proposed R-43 should be changed to any type of commercial zoning. With the
current zoning, this will allow the proper buffer that is needed for our county island neighborhood. The current zoning
will allow a proper buffer and keep our character of the rural neighborhood.
Please, consider all the comment’s you received from the residences of our little county island. This high density
development is not wanted in our area and will not fit the character of the area. We just want the existing commercial
buffer and no more. We love the rural character of our neighborhood. We hope you too, can look past what the
developers want to turn our neighborhood into. We love our lifestyle. Please DON’T recommend this high density
development in are area. KEEP the CURRENT ZONING.
Page 820
NOTES of Letter- Meeting City of Phoenix Annexation My name is Julie Burns. I have three separate one acre lots on
Yearling. The first acre is one lot in from the subject property on the North side of Yearling. The second acre is three lots
from the subject property on the North side of Yearling. The third acre is two lots down from the subject proper on the
South side of Yearling. One house is currently being built by my Son contracted with NextGen builders, I live in the other
house and the third acre has a beautiful shed, I’m using for my horse barn. So, I have a lot invested in this immediate
area.
When the state land sold to USSA, they worked with the neighborhood to get our input in the development. We agreed
to have a walk around the whole development for horses/runners, bikers etc. We worked on agreeing to have
commercial focused on Happy Valley/Jomax and agreed to have houses on 19th Ave. Guess what…? USSA and their
developers didn’t change anything along the way. USSA was respectful for our needs to keep our neighborhood
character. And I thank them tremendously, because, I now see how easy it is for changes to happen along the way out of
sight of the neighbor’s.
So this round of developers wants high density development in our neighborhood and has no concern for the character
of our area. We have new homeowners and original homeowners with residences in this area that want to keep things
rural. Not changing the rural feel is the main goal our neighborhood want and need for development.
The developers have ignored, lied and disregard our desires during their community outreach.
This little annexation to the City of Phx is just a “baby step” to use a quote from Dave Ramsey. It will lead to more high
density development with this developer that doesn’t listen to the neighborhood and a lack of respect for our lifestyle.
All services that is desired can be done within Maricopa County. A water well can supply up to 4 homes. We have fire
service, sheriff’s and anything else a homeowner would want.
I’m opposed to the City of Phoenix encroaching on our rural living. And I’m opposed to the developers not listening to
the homeowners that have lived here for 50 years to only 6 months. We should have a voice…? KEEP ZONING AS IS.
Our main goal is to keep commercial on Happy Valley. One acre lot in. It is slowly encroaching more into our
neighborhood by the developers silencing our neighbor’s by making offers and being in escrow with the homeowners.
Low balling them with offers that cannot replace their current lifestyle.
Please listen to our desires. We know this is a baby step for this developer. We DO NOT WANT City of Phx in a random
spot in our R-43 neighborhood and We Do Not Want high density zoning R2 or other equivalent zoning.
--
Julie Burns,
Sincerely,
Julie Burns
Hawkeye Landscaping, Inc
623-582-1122
Page 821
David O Simmons
From: Stephen Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:38 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Mr Simmons,
I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1647 W Briles Road for the last 4 years. I would like to speak at the
Toll Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1.
I would also like to put on record my opposition to the rezoning and Toll Brothers proposed build. I will be short
and succinct as possible.
First I believe this build is not consistent with the existing immediate neighborhood. No where in our little island
is there a 4 story complex. We are a small neighborhood of single family homes with a few businesses on Happy Valley
and 19th, of which none are multiple story complexes of this size.
Secondly, I believe the current zoning is for medical building. I mention this because medical offices bring a
needed service to our area, an asset to our community. This would benefit our community and not just the Happy
Valley Island. I know that there will eventually be development on those grounds, I don’t see any benefit to us with a
large apartment complex nor is it consistent with any building in that area in regards to size and design. Development
will come, this is not the development that I support for our neighborhood nor do the majority of my neighbors.
Thirdly, I moved here with the understanding of the current zoning. I accepted that. Now it is being proposed
to change that against my opposition and others. Do we as, a community, not have a say in the changes that occur in
our community for something that directly affects us? We are not asking for change on this zone only to honor the
current zoning.
Fourthly, there are plenty of other sights in the surrounding area for apparent complexes to be built to support
the housing needs. I don’t see a justification for this build on this particular site when other areas are available to
support an apparent complex. To support this build is to ignore our wishes to preserve the community in which we live
in. The current zoning does not support the Toll Bothers proposed build and the zoning should remain as is for
development. That has clearly been the voice of the immediate neighborhood.
I sincerely hope that the voices of our community are heard and respected. We love our neighborhood and
want to preserve it and keep with the current zoning. The apartment complex is in now way consistent with the
neighborhood.
Please add my comments to the meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Stephen B Murphy
(219) 308-8516
Page 822
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:48 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Melissa Crawford; James Whatley
Subject: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1 and City of PHX Formal Meeting September 15th Article
26 (annexation Yearling & 19th Ave)
Dear City of Phoenix, Deer Valley Council Members, Maricopa County Council Members, Mayor Gallego,
My name is Julie Burns. I live one house and block from the numerous high density planned development’s in our area.
We have met with Toll Brothers attorney’s several times. We dispute the
traffic report. They want to characterize the residence as “not for
development,” “not for building,” “not for infrastructure,” “not wanting
change,” “Not knowing how good this would be for our neighborhood,” “not
knowing what’s good for the community, City of Phoenix or State of
Arizona.” Let me tell you who we are in your community, City of
Phoenix, and State of Arizona. We are your business owners,
entrepreneurs and hard workers that depend on the construction economy.
WHO WE ARE:
We are your Registered Nurses, BSN’s who take care of our community,
your Anesthetist who makes sure you wake up during a procedure, your
landscape construction company to give great outdoor spaces owner, your
realtor to sell you homes, your granite slab installation company owner,
your drinking water purifier owner, your plumber owner, your electrician
owner, TWO well drill owners, TWO pest control company owners, TWO Turf
Paradise Race track owners and trainers, your FedEX driver, your tree
trimer owner, your landscape maintenance owner, your Post Master who
delivers your mail, your custom car restoration owner/Professional Race
Care Driver, your Professional World Wakesurfer, your cheerleader coach,
your school teacher, your retired Veteran’s who bought the land when
first offered by the government, your Veteran’s widower, your marshal
arts studio owner, assisted living home owner, your high level corporate
professional for a publicly traded company, ect
So, if you think we can’t do change, let me tell you what we have been
through and changes made to make it through the Great Recession, COVID,
and now inflation. We want and need change, development, growth and
population for our lively hoods. However, the above neighbors are
united in preserving the character of our neighborhood.
KEEP CURRENT ZONING
First and foremost, I want to say I’m sorry to our four neighbors (zoned
R-43) that are under escrow with the developer. I do not intend to do
them harm by opposing the high density development. However, maybe I’m
Page 823
doing you a favor. By now, you see that you can not buy a home similar
to our area for any price. Not even one million dollars… I’m sorry to
go against your wishes. However, I will not throw in the towel for our
lifestyle and character of our neighborhood.
Now, to express to DV staff my desire to deep the current zoning Medical
offices and General Comerance (5 ac) and R-43 (10 ac) just how it is. I
don’t think the proposed R-43 should be changed to any type of
commercial zoning. With the current zoning, this will allow the proper
buffer that is needed for our county island neighborhood. The current
zoning will allow a proper buffer and keep our character of the rural
neighborhood.
Please, consider all the comment’s you received from the residences of
our little county island. This high density development is not wanted
in our area and will not fit the character of the area. We just want the
existing commercial buffer and no more. We love the rural character of
our neighborhood. We hope you too, can look past what the developers
want to turn our neighborhood into. We love our lifestyle. Please DON’T
recommend this high density development in are area. KEEP the CURRENT
ZONING.
NOTES of Letter- Meeting City of Phoenix Annexation
My name is Julie Burns. I have three separate one acre lots on Yearling.
The first acre is one lot in from the subject property on the North side
of Yearling. The second acre is three lots from the subject property on
the North side of Yearling. The third acre is two lots down from the
subject proper on the South side of Yearling. One house is currently
being built by my Son contracted with NextGen builders, I live in the
other house and the third acre has a beautiful shed, I’m using for my
horse barn. So, I have a lot invested in this immediate area.
When the state land sold to USSA, they worked with the neighborhood to
get our input in the development. We agreed to have a walk around the
whole development for horses/runners, bikers etc. We worked on agreeing
to have commercial focused on Happy Valley/Jomax and agreed to have
houses on 19th Ave. Guess what…? USSA and their developers didn’t change
anything along the way. USSA was respectful for our needs to keep our
neighborhood character. And I thank them tremendously, because, I now
see how easy it is for changes to happen along the way out of sight of
the neighbor’s.
So this round of developers wants high density development in our
neighborhood and has no concern for the character of our area. We have
new homeowners and original homeowners with residences in this area that
want to keep things rural. Not changing the rural feel is the main goal
our neighborhood want and need for development.
The developers have ignored, lied and disregard our desires during their
community outreach.
This little annexation to the City of Phx is just a “baby step” to use a
Page 824
quote from Dave Ramsey. It will lead to more high density development
with this developer that doesn’t listen to the neighborhood and a lack
of respect for our lifestyle.
All services that is desired can be done within Maricopa County. A water
well can supply up to 4 homes. We have fire service, sheriff’s and
anything else a homeowner would want.
I’m opposed to the City of Phoenix encroaching on our rural living. And
I’m opposed to the developers not listening to the homeowners that have
lived here for 50 years to only 6 months. We should have a voice…? KEEP
ZONING AS IS.
Our main goal is to keep commercial on Happy Valley. One acre lot in. It
is slowly encroaching more into our neighborhood by the developers
silencing our neighbor’s by making offers and being in escrow with the
homeowners. Low balling them with offers that cannot replace their
current lifestyle.
Please listen to our desires. We know this is a baby step for this
developer. We DO NOT WANT City of Phx in a random spot in our R-43
neighborhood and We Do Not Want high density zoning.
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
Yearling
Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 825
David O Simmons
From: barbara zimpleman
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:18 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: apartments and dense housing.
We moved out here for the quiet, neighborhood feel that was here. Now the apartments in fornt of a high school, the so
called luxury tiny leased homes, and other densely packed housing being built around the pinnacle Peak to Happy Valley
areas on both sides of I 17 are making it a nightmare. The roads are not sufficient for the numbers. The crime and
number of just plain scary people moving in is ridiculous. The statements that this area was always supposed to be built
up to the level you are working on is ridiculous. My husband and I hate it. You are ruining our neighborhoods, the places
we like to go, and making this area feel like the beginnings of a slum. STOP IT.
Page 826
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 8:26 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: comments case 48 hour notice
Hi,
I would like to set up a time to speak. Application GPA DV 2-21-1
#Z-48-21-1
Also, add my comments I'm opposed to such a high density building in a rural area. Does not fit the rural neighbor hood.
No high density building within a 10 mile radius. Does NOT fit!
Sincerely,
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 827
David O Simmons
From: julie burns
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:32 AM
To: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; David O Simmons
Subject: Meeting ID 915 4472 3195 Norterra Bungalow
Good Morning,
I wanted to express my concerns related to the high density zoning change for the Maricopa County Island. We currently
are zoned R-43. Meaning one house per acre. Any change to the county island would be an extreme upset to the rural
living that has become homes to many families.
This long term land owner has not cared about the communities concerns. They have been informed several times by
multiple land owners that homeless and trash has accumulated on the property. Nothing has been done.
Looking back on the property over 10 years, there have been multiple violations related to trash on site. He has agreed
to clean up and fence.... No performance on the developers part...STILL homeless and trash and dumping onsite.
Stay Safe,
Julie Burns
1717 W Yearling Road
602-695-3903
Page 828
David O Simmons
From: Connorburnsurf
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:13 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Add comment
Case # Z - 48-21-1
And case #GPA-DV-2-21-1
I live at 1710 W. Yearling Rd.. Phoenix AZ 85085. I am against high density development behind Circle K. Medical
buildings are OK. However absolutely no high density residences. It will ruin the character and charm of our county
island.
Sincerely,
Connor Burns
Page 829
David O Simmons
From: Courtney Hamby
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:30 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
Hello,
We wanted to make sure and get this email over to you, we are definitely apposed to the building that will be taking
place. We are very concerned about it bringing low income housing and what type of people that may bring into our
neighborhoods. We are also concerned with the congestion this is going to cause to our county island, it would be so
nice to see our county island stay as customized home building.
Our address is 1707 W. Yearling Rd. Phoenix, 85085
Thank you,
Courtney Hamby
Wayne Butler
Page 830
David O Simmons
From: Diane Habener
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:16 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case No. Z-48-21
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I live at 25312 N. 16th Avenue. My 2 1/2 acre property is about 1000’ east of the proposed development. As a licensed
Real Estate Agent and Broker working in both Arizona and California for over 40 years, I am familiar with Real Estate
developments. And when I purchased my property in 2000, USAA had just purchased the section of land near me, so I
always knew that there would be development around me. What I, and most of my existing neighbors, hope to do is
retain our little pocket of rural/horsey feeling County Island. I believe that the current zoning that the City already has in
place of Commercial Office and Residential (3.5-5 dwellings per acre will provide the best buffer from 19th Avenue to
the interior properties.
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request might be MINOR per the City’s definition but 470 units crammed
onto 12.46 acres in 3 and 4 story buildings is MAJOR and is completely incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood
for the following reasons:
1) 2 stories is the most that has been allowed in the neighborhood previously.
2) It is normal, accepted development procedure to have commercial zoning beside high traffic areas.
3) There are already a plethora of apartments that have been and are being built in the area, including 212 units on
Happy Valley directly south of this property.
4) A buffer of residential homes on bigger lots would be more in keeping as a buffer to the County properties that are all
on 1.25 acre or larger lots.
For all of these reasons, I am completely opposed to the proposed zoning and in favor of the current zoning.
Sincerely,
Diane Habener :)
(925)209-6480
Sent from my iPhone
Page 831
David O Simmons
From: Diane Habener
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:31 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Development behind Circle K on 19th Ave and Happy Valley, Z-48-21-1 and GOA-
DV-2-21-1
Dear David,
I sent an email previously about this development. I live in the pocket of County and have my horses in the backyard.
The area is currently zoned commercial and should remain that way! A New Mexican Restaurant just opened on the
north side of Happy Valley, west of 17th Ave. It has been continuously packed since the opening! There is definitely a
need for more places with commercial zoning in this location!
At the last meeting, I asked why the apartments needed to be 4 stories and was told that it had to do with costs. It
should not be the responsibility of the neighbors to make this project work for the developers. Rather, it is the
developers who need to work with the existing neighbors. There is nothing in the area taller than 2 stories and most of
the homes in the area are in fact single story. To allow 4 story apartments to be built and be able to look into all the
neighboring yards is completely unacceptable.
Please listen to the already existing neighbors! We are the ones that have to live with the results of whatever is built.
There are plenty of other locations where apartments make more sense. At the last meeting, it seemed like they was a
lot of input from people that do not live right here in our area. More weight needs to be put on the neighbors that live
and plan on continuing to live in the area.
I would, also, like to speak at the upcoming meeting if I can figure how how to register to do that. The City’s system
does not seem to be very user friendly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Habener
25312 N 16th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
Page 832
David O Simmons
From: Timothy Schollmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:19 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: APPl: GPV-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
David Simmons,
We were just inform of this up coming meeting. We would like to attend this meeting. Please forward the information
necessary for us to attend. Very upset they this LLC did not post properly (14.10.020 Notice of public hearing
[codepublishing.com]) about the notice of the meetings. I guess we can blame this on COVID as well...... I have been
informed that this LLC has also purchased the land to the north of this and wants to do the same thing (3-4 story
Apartments). If this gets passed they will want to do the same thing on the north property he has purchased. Also why
were these families that the LLC bought the land from given upfront hush money ($5000) prior to this??????
I understand development, I have no issue with that. But I do have issues with 3-4 story apartments going up in my
neighbor. That makes them become low end housing and brings in the crime, drugs and violence. It will also put more
vehicles in our area that has a lot of traffic to begin with. If you stay with the single level bungalows/cottages that is a lot
less people and less traffic and the schools can handle to flow of new kids in area. Also the type of people that
the bungalows/cottages bring in are more family orientated not the rift raft.
Please forward information so my voice can be heard.
Dusty Schollmeyer
602-561-6651
Page 833
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:32 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Applications GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
Mr. Simmons,
I’m writing to voice my concerns and to be added to the attendance list for Thursdays meeting at 6p concerning
applications
GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
I speak for my household in that we are against the building of multi family housing on our county island.
Our county island is zoned R-43 and we are trying to maintain a neighborhood of like minded families who enjoy the
freedom of space, quiet and security.
With the city putting in apartments in every vacant lot around us and the increased growth of this area we are getting
choked out and others are being forced out. All of this do to the drop in property values, increased crime rate, excessive
traffic and pollution due to the swarms of people moving into this area.
The city already can’t keep up with fixing our roads from this boom in population. The roads aren’t wide enough to
accommodate the amount of people coming into this area, they’ve already had to add a electrical substation across
from this proposed location. All of this is adding to the smothering congestion and destroying our views and air quality.
I look forward to attending Thursdays meeting and sharing these issues. Please add me to the attendance list and share
my email with your colleagues.
Thank you,
James Whatley
Sent from my iPhone
Page 834
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 3:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1. GPA-DV-2-21-1 Toll Brothers Lumara virtual meeting
Hi David,
We had our follow up meeting with Toll Brothers last night regarding the proposed project on 19th ave north of Happy
Valley.
We had a good turn out from our neighbors and actually got some of our concerns and questions addressed, not
answered but addressed. We have an issue with one person that is always present and has had his comments read at
every meeting. His name is Clif Freedman and by some stroke of luck, his comments approving this build are always the
first ones read, followed by two anonymous comments in favor of this build as well. This has been the issue with the
meeting on 9-23 and the one last night, 10-19.
After looking up Mr. Freedman from his comments on Nextdoor app and googling him. I’ve discovered that Clif lives off
of Dove Valley road which is five miles away from this build site. Our concerns with this project do not affect him in
anyway.
I also discovered that in 2011, Mr. Freedman started the Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association to combat the
“Road to Nowhere” build that would connect his residential road of Dove Valley east to Cave Creek. He fought
adamantly against this, citing some of the same concerns that we are, ie: traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, loss
of character and beauty in an undeveloped area.
My question is, how can this man be totally against development one day and turn around and push so hard for this to
pass? The answer is, he can’t, he wouldn’t be unless he has skin in the game. He doesn’t even live near us and he is at
every meeting saying how wonderful this build is.
The second part of my question is, why are anonymous comments read and recorded? When you sign up for the zoom
call so that you can type in questions, you have to provide a name. When you type your question, it automatically inputs
that name into your comments. There is not an anonymous option!
As a community, we have talked and we would like all of Clif Freedmans comments stricken from the record along with
the anonymous comments as well. This is only fair, when these people i mentioned seem like planted positive remarks
perpetrated by Toll Brothers.
I’ve included pictures that show both Clif Freedman’s home address is the same as the address for his Sonoran
Conservation Association along with a picture of a map that shows where he actually lives.
Thank you for your time and involvement in this matter.
Sincerely,
James Whatley
480-297-4537
Page 835
Page 836
Page 837
Sent from my iPhone
Page 838
David O Simmons
From: Gwen
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:44 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: ApplicationsZ-48-21-1 & GPV-DV-2-21-1
David,
My name is Gwendolyn Currey.
I live at 25511 N. 16th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85085.
I am emailing you in reference to Application GPV-DV-2-21-1 and Application Z-48-21-1.
Please let it be known that we oppose both applications to build single family residences or multi-family residences in
my neighborhood located at NEC of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley for 470 per acre.
I have lived in this Maricopa County Island neighborhood since 1998. And I do not want this new development
here. Please do not approve them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeffrey & Gwendolyn Currey
25511 N. 16th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602-390-3922
Page 839
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:07 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1
Thank you, David,
We had a meeting with the developer last night by their choice. The first meeting they had never addressed our
concerns or comments that were made on their website or at the first scheduled meeting. This meeting was just a feel
good meeting for their attorney to state how irrational we are for wanting homes on their land! The high density
residential apartments are not in character of our rural area. Single family homes are.
We are zoned R-43 meaning one house per acre. This 15 acre development and the others in the area, Case # Z2021051
17acres & Article 26 on City of Phoenix Formal meeting September 15th are not conforming to our rural area.
The meeting attendance included 8 families under my zoom login. All families live adjacent to the developments or
within two blocks.
1. Tallent's
2. Butler's
3. Cocuzza's
4. Rusty lives on Parson's and 19th Ave 2nd house east 4. James Watley 5. Diane Habener 6. Wampler's 7. Murphy's 8.
Rimbly's
The four houses the the developer calls remnants, are dream houses to the homeowners. But, the deal for them was ALL
or NONE in the escrow.
This has bought their silence/voice to the development!
parcels:210-10-008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-008F, & 210-10-008G
Norterra development to the west has single family homes 2 houses west of 19th Ave selling for 1.2 million! 19th
Avenue is not a bad place to be living. Why can we not have 3-5 houses on one acre? With more dense houses per acre
on the south side of the development? Years ago when we proposed a buffer for our community, it was stated the
medical office zoning would be the buffer. Now the developers want more land to get rezoned!
Please don't change our neighborhood. It's one of a kind!!!
*For the record I dispute the traffic study. It's misleading and inaccurate. I feel the developer tied to pull a fast one on
us. Traffic will disrupt and get re-routed throughout our neighborhood. When I-17 is closed or backed up, we see sooo
much traffic and dust. We cannot safely take a left (south) onto 19th Ave as of today.
* Why does the developer want to keep the CO/MO zoning? Fishy! What's the true intent of our backyard/front yard
area?
*Please consider homes 3-5/acre for this area and 19th Avenue at the very least. They will sell for high value.
*I-17 and Pinnacle Peak has rezoned 44 acres for apartments. This site is fitting for the requested development. Our
neighborhood is not.
Page 840
Thank you for your time and please don't recommend this development or
the others in our county island.
Stay Safe,
---
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
Yearling
Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
On 2021-10-20 15:33, David O Simmons wrote:
> Hi Julie,
>
> This case is located within the City Council District 1 boundary.
> https://www.phoenix.gov/district1 Ann O'Brien is the District 1
> Council Person.
>
> You may submit your letters of support/concern directly to me as I am
> the staff liaison to the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
> https://www.phoenix.gov/villages/Deer-Valley I will save the
> correspondence to the case file to be included as part of the public
> record and attach it to the staff report as part of the public comment
> exhibit.
>
> Let me know if you have further questions.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
> Village Planner *II
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie Burns
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:01 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Z-48-21-1
Page 841
>
> Hello,
>
> We had another meeting with Toll Brothers last night. Who do we
> express our concerns to? I think we need both City of Phoenix,
> Maricopa County and Deer Valley staff. There are two maps out on the
> internet. Which District is ours? District 1 or District 2? Or, is it
> deferent by the city or county? And could you provide their names. Jim
> Waring, Kat Galleo, Thelda Williams ect.
>
>
>
> --
> Julie Burns,
>
> Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
> 623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
> Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave
> Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 842
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 2:06 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1
Good Afternoon,
I wanted to express our concern as a neighborhood of the Happy Valley island located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley
regarding the neighborhood meeting held last night. The comments of the neighbors were not placed on record. We
also weren't addressed to express our ideas or concerns with the project of four story high density apartments.
Let it be clear, we are not thinking this project is in the General Plan for development and is not fitting the feel and
character of the rural neighborhood.
Four or more neighbors are in escrow with the homeowners and the developer has silenced them.
When will the city and county meeting be live again. Many neighbors are not having their voice added to the
development.
Sincerely,
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 843
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:50 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Letter for the informational meeting Sept 9th
Attach for the comments, please. Please add me to attend, however, my work schedule may not allow. I am a RN, BSN
and emergencies come up.
# GPA-DV-2-21-1
# Z-48-21-1
eptember 6, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
c/o David.simmons@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1)
To Whom It may Concern,
I do request this letter be read into the record of this hearing. I would also like to attend the virtual meeting, however, I
may miss the meeting due to work schedule. But, I do want a say in the informational meeting.
Our county island is rural. Our dogs don’t need to be walked because they have over an acre or two to run on. We walk
our horses and donkeys on this county island! I get so many people and kids stopping just to see a horse! Their children
look at them like they are zoo animals. This is sad! Please keep the feel of our rural life and limit the growth of this
intrusive development into our backyard!
Our county island is a place we ride razors (street legal) to our neighbors for driveway/backyard get togethers.
Our county island is a place we have lived in for an average of over 20 years. This statistic used to be 40 years. Our
children are buying land and building houses on this county island. Our neighbors are selling their larger homes to buy
land in this area to build a smaller home.
They don’t want to leave this county island.
Some of our county island neighbors are in escrow with the developer to buy their homes. This is just to silence them
from the development. They were all paid over $1,000,000 for their home. Now, they are finding what can they buy for
1 million….? Nothing that is comparable to what they owned in the county island. So, they will downsize to a more
glittered house that is more socially accepted…..
Not everyone in the county island can be silenced or bought. We love our rural character .… Can you love it too?
The massive development is NOT suited for this charming rural way of life. The original Deer Valley Meeting talked of
medical offices. This would be the right buffer for our rural neighborhood. Not a four story high density building with
residences of over 470 per acre!
We are zoned R-43. This high density development is not found within over a 15 mile radius to the north and over 20
mile radius to the south.
This type of high density deveolpment is ever further to the west and east.
Page 844
Deer Valley Staff- I plead with you to not let this ruin our character and way of life for our families and animals.
Sincerely,
Julie Burns
1717 W Yearling Road & 1732 W Yearling Road
602-695-3903
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 845
David O Simmons
From: Lamb Chops
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:24 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 / Request for Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation
Dear Mr. Simmons:
As a 9 year resident of the community of Fireside at Norterra, I am writing to voice my concern and opposition to the
request to amend the size of the land use at the corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.
There has been much development in this area (Happy Valley / W Jomax Rd / N 19th Ave.) in the 9 years I have lived in
the area - both Commercial and Residential. It is most concerning to see a proposal that would substantially increase
the residential units per acre to 15+ for MORE multi-family housing in addition to what has been approved and not yet
completed. I fear even more grid-lock at the two intersections of N 19th Avenue with no proposals or current
construction for improvements to accommodate the increase in traffic.
Residents in the area have felt the adverse impact of the growth. In the last 5 years we have worked together to have a
much needed new Firehouse built in the area (in record time no less) to reduce the high response times as well as
having a left turn arrow installed at W Happy Valley Rd and N 19th Ave because of the wait times to make a left turn
there. These are things that seemed to be oversights when development was approved and they took time to put into
place.
Please consider the negative impact to current residents of the area when you hear proposals to amend the land
use. The area cannot absorb more residents without having terrible repercussions from it.
Thank you,
Karen Gundling
Page 846
David O Simmons
From: Kim Cocuzza
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:45 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Comment to meeting 19th Ave-Reference Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I am a neighbor and concerned citizen. I live at 25813 N 17th Avenue, Phoenix. We do not want the current zoning
changed to high density, I see the posted sign shows 470 homes per acre? We do not want our rural way of life and
character of the neighborhood changed. We are completely opposed to the zone change. How can we express our
opinion further?
Best,
Kim
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
Kim K. Cocuzza
Realtor
AARE
www.kimcocuzzarealty.com [kimcocuzzarealty.com]
LA/Ventura Phoenix/Prescott
805-501-0771- 480-616-1675
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this
picture from the Internet.
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Page 847
David O Simmons
From: Homeschool Mom
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 6:19 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1
Hi David
I just want to let you know I oppose this project. I think we need to bring this back to a residential area, where you can
bring the housing up to like 3 houses to an acre. We have major traffic problems on 19th Ave. Last weekend the freeway
was shut down both directions for an accident on I-17 and Happy Valley on the freeway, so all that traffic backs up on
19th Ave which makes it almost impossible for us to get out of our neighborhood. Then on Tuesday night there was an
accident at 19th Ave and Briles Rd, it was a 3 car accident with a head on and shut down 19th Ave both north and south.
So we have major traffic problems.
Also we are concerned about the height of the apartments because across the road on the west side of 19th Ave is only
2 story buildings.
Thank you for reading about my concerns, Kimberley Wampler.
602-451-1327
Page 848
David O Simmons
From: Homeschool Mom
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:31 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
I want to be a part of the meeting, I don't think we need more apartments in our area. 19th Ave is not equipped for
more traffic, and we have apartments going in everywhere around us already.
Thank you, Kimberley Wampler
Page 849
David O Simmons
From: Marjorie McCaw
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:36 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
Hello:
I am reaching out in opposition to the proposed Rezoning and potential apartment complex Referencing Z-48-21-1 and
GPA-DA-2-21-1. I believe this will lower our housing value and bring more crime to the area. I do not see this is anything
beneficial for our neighborhood and oppose any such rezoning or construction of any apartments at the referenced
location.
Thank you for this consideration.
>>
>> Marjorie McCaw
>> 1647 W Briles Road
>> Phoenix AZ. 85085
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
Page 850
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 2:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: ReferenceZ-48-21-1. 2nd ref is GPA-DV-2-21-1. Toll Brothers 14 acres and Case
#Z2021051 17 acres rezone R-2 by Melissa @ Parsons /19th ave.
I am writing again to let you know I am completely against any apartment building in this area. My understanding from the
gentleman at Toll Bros they chose this area because of its location and close to the Plant being built at I 17 and 303. It is
his opinion the future employees would prefer apartments to houses. I agree some of them probably will, however I am of
the opinion some of the future employees will prefer homes and yards and possibly animals. which is where our area
comes in to play.
As you are aware our neighborhood has valid concerns re traffic and how we have been affected by the growth of the
area as it is. It is very difficult to make a left hand turn out of the side streets onto 19th Ave. At rush hour times The Toll
Bros representative was of the opinion that the Apartment Complex would in anyway affect this problem. However if all
this apartment dwellers are going to work at the plant @ I17 and 303 they will soon discover going North on 19th Ave to
Jomax will be the easiest way to get to I 17. Making it impossible in the mornings to make a left turn onto 19th Ave.
Our next concern are the detours necesary because of accidents or road closures of Happy Valley, 19th Ave or I 17. when
this happens traffic detours through our neighborhood. According to Toll Bros most drivers will not take off on any of the
County Roads so first of all these are private roads not county roads and yes the drivers will happily use the non
maintained private roads if it will get them to where they are going, We have had this experience many times over the past
few years. This is a rural area and we request it stay this way. Putting in homes on 1 acre lots is reasonable.
So at this time all I can do is pray for our neighborhood.
Oh, how I miss sitting outside in the evening and listening to the occasional horse neighing or cow mooing or even a
coyote howling. Thank you for listening
Sincerely
Martha B Tallant
25814 N. 17the Ave
Phoenix, Az
Page 851
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:59 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z - 48 - 21 - 1. 2nd ref is GPA-DV-2-21-1
I am writing this memo to let you know as a long time resident in this neighborhood (since 1972) that I am completely
against placing apartments of any kind. It is my opinion that this neighborhood has been infringed upon enough. This area
should remain residential with 1 home per acre. Thank you for listening. Martha B Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave. Phoenix,
Az 85085
Page 852
David O Simmons
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 2:11 PM
To: tmoran@swlaw.com; David O Simmons; ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
Cc: rmccann@swlaw.com
Subject: Re: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good Afternoon,
I was scheduled to speak last Thursday the 23rd on Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DV-2-21-1. No one registered to speak was
given the chance to. Toll Brothers did questions and answers from all supportive people. We are a small community and
I know most all are not supportive of 3 and 4 story apartments in our area. This will change how we live in our community
not be mention several other major issues.
Sincerely,
Melissa Crawford
-----Original Message-----
From: Moran, Taylor N.
To: David O Simmons; Griemsmann, Noel
Cc: tryitonjewels@aol.com; McCann, Ryan
Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 8:58 am
Subject: RE: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good morning,
Below please find the link to participate in the virtual neighborhood meeting.
https://swlaw.zoom.us/j/91544723195?pwd=V2RmZmJBMTRMUXJUQTByUUJoSnEwdz09 [swlaw.zoom.us]
We look forward to discussing the project with you.
Thank you,
Taylor Moran
Urban Planner
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6589
tmoran@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com [swlaw.com]
Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, Tucson
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:43 AM
To: Griemsmann, Noel; Moran, Taylor N.
Cc: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Subject: RE: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Page 853
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
Taylor,
I think the citizen below is interested in speaking at your required neighborhood meeting. See email below.
Thanks,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:08 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Fwd: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Please add me to speak on GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21 Sept 23rd at 6pm
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
-----Original Message-----
From: tryitonjewels
To: David.simmons@phoenix.gov
Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 7:38 am
Subject: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good morning,
Can you please add me to speak at the meeting for Toll Brothers 19th Ave and Happy Valley Sept 23rd at 6pm. I am a
neighbor.
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Page 854
David O Simmons
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:49 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Application GPV-2-21-1 and App Z-48-21-1 N 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Dear Mr. Simmons,
Our family lives north of these parcels that are applying to be re-zoned. We are against this re-zoning. We have lived
here 17 years and are concerned about the 3 to 4 story apartments that are attempting to change our community. The
added traffic and increase of crime and disturbance of our community is unwelcome. We have young children who call
this their home. We are asking for your consideration of our community and future. Please add me, Melissa Crawford to
the virtual meeting on Sept 9th at 6:30
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
1736 W Parsons Rd
Phoenix, AZ 82085
Page 855
David O Simmons
From: Nicole Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DV-2-21-1
Hello David,
I’m emailing you regarding the proposal for 470 residents per acre in the 13.8 acres by Circle K Deer Valley. Z-48-21-1
and GPA-DV-2-21-1.
I own at 1650 W Yearling RD in the county island.
I am shocked at this proposal. The county island is a rural community that is already overwhelmed with an unsafe
amount of traffic on 19th ave with the addition of Union Park. The infrastructure cannot handle 470 residents additional
per acre in this area. Absolutely not.
We bought here to be in a rural community. The traffic patterns have significantly changed since the addition of union
park and we are already at capacity of traffic on 19th Ave on any given day.
I’m emailing you to let you know the residents of the county island DO NOT want this development to be approved.
These types of developments do nothing for the community or for property values. Yet most importantly the
infrastructure cannot handle this traffic and will not be safe.
We love biking and walking in our area to the Desert Vista Trailhead and if this proposal is approved those days are over.
It’s already borderline safe during rush hour mornings and afternoons. This mass housing development will ruin the
nature of our entire community.
Thank you for your time. Please take our concerns to heart as we love our little piece of the desert here and don’t want
it violated by developers.
Respectfully,
Nicole Hudson
Professional Wake Surfer
403-466-6618
Page 856
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1) September 9 meeting
September 6, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
c/o David.simmons@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1)
To Whom It may Concern,
I respectfully request that this letter be read into the record of this hearing as I am unable, due to work
schedules, to speak at this hearing.
We are so very tired of Investors buying property with existing unopposed zoning knowing that they can buy the Zoning
they want. It is truly incomprehensible to us that you would even consider taking land within this area and
change the residential density to such an astronomical degree.
We have lived in the home we built since 1988. When we built the County requirements for this "island" were
a minimum of 2.5 acres to build a home. When that changed to 1.25 we were saddened, but knew we at least
maintained the rural integrity of the area. There are many other long term residents, as well as new, and we
all chose this area for exactly what it is and then invested in that dream. Our monies were used to build homes
and lives for our families. We are all vested in the very Nature of this "island". This proposed Zoning change for
the purpose of this "Developer/Investor" would destroy all that we've all worked so hard to maintain.
Once again, the Property Owners and residents of the Triangular Maricopa County Island bordered by Happy
Valley to the South, the CAP and Jomax to the North & East, and 19th Avenue to the West are being strong
armed and railroaded. Many/Most of us are long term property and home owners, and became that with the
expectations and assurances provided, over the MANY MANY years, by the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee, that we could be comfortable in the fact that the vision for our properties was in line with the
homes and structures that we were investing our lives and families in. We held faith in that reassurance and
saw that could be maintained, with the examples of areas already out there similar to ours, even if eventually
annexed into the City. Sunburst Farms area, Western Meadows area, Hidden Manor and many more. One of
the factors in that faith was the diversity that the Cities in the Metropolitan areas of the Valley have
maintained for Decades, an enormous variety of housing and spaces working together to provide continuity
for all.
Most of these areas have in common the ability to transition thoughtfully from one type to the next. That
certainly happened here already. The USAA development wasn’t the most welcome development to most of
Page 857
us with a minimum 1.25 acre parcel to build our homes, but it was far enough away from our little triangular
patch to allow us breathing room. Especially with the barriers USAA provided their development with along
19th Avenue. Now you are proposing to allow 40 times or more that density into a small 13+ acre site directly
connecting to and looking right into our backyards. To those future residents I’m sure this will look like an
oasis as there is nothing to stop them from utilizing our private roads for dog walking, jogging, kids dirtbiking,
etc etc etc……
Please for once, stick to your guns and do not modify what has been assured OVER and OVER throughout the
years to us, people that invested their lives to build life long generational homes for their families. There are
MULTIPLE parcels of land in this area to build high density housing as is witnessed heavily within a 2 mile
radius of our County Island. Allow us to maintain that character that we have spent years and lifetimes
building.
If you go thru with this approval, shame on you. But I will also state ( as I have very little faith in the way the
system works $$$) If you allow any development at all, at least at a minimum require that there are NO entry
points directly into our neighborhood and NO heights that could intrude upon or affect our monetary and
lifetime investments which we have all worked so very hard to maintain. (IE: max one story structures)
And BTW we are also extremely disappointed that living on 17Th Ave just North of Parsons never generated a
written Notice from anyone about this proposed project, so I feel its quite likely that many in our area are
unaware of this proposed change in land use. We only quite recently found out ourselves. Working families do
not have time to keep a constant Vigil on Vultures so please expand your notifications to a larger radius.
I will close this PLEA with one more reminder. Part of what makes Phoenix and the “Valley” a very unique and
desirable “Big City” to live in are the diverse types of lifestyles scattered throughout the entire City for people
to choose from. County Islands can and do add a great deal to this choice and diversity, and to those of us that
have embraced this lifestyle, we should be protected in some way. Our area is small and with constraints due
to the CAP, Happy Valley Rd. & 19th Ave. We all knew there was no stopping some commercial development
on Happy Valley, but with the abundance of properties out there outside of our small triangular rural R-43
area, why not just allow us to be what we are without having to fight this fight over and over again. If people
buy R-43 land, that’s how it should remain, even if the City annexes. Investors take chances on being able to
manipulate and change what they buy, that does not obligate the City to give in for every deep pocket
applicant that comes along, especially when they would be destroying what has been successfully embraced
by many lifelong residents.
In conclusion, Please at the minimum, at least maintain the current zoning as it NOW reads for ALL of the
parcels involved in this land grab.
Closing this still with Hope.
Best Regards
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 858
David O Simmons
From: Robert McKee
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:00 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: #Z-48-21-1, GPA/DV- 2-21-1
Mr. Simmon,
I would like to register to speak for the meeting referenced above. Please send me a link when appropriate.
I oppose changing the 13.48 acre plot from 3-1/2 - 5 dwellings + per acre.
I would like the residential portion to remain 3-1/2 - 5 dwellings per acre.
I also oppose changing any RU43 zoning, to PUD.
I would like the plots developed in alignment with the original general plan for these proper
Thank you,
Robert McKee
Page 859
David O Simmons
From: ssharyasz@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:05 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Proposed Toll Brothers Apartments
Good afternoon David,
My name is Sandy and I live near the area where Toll Brothers is seeking authority to build 470 apartments in a
residential area. I am strongly opposed — asking the City to deny Toll Brothers request.
While I do not have the exact number of new housing units off 19th Ave and Happy Valley, I can tell you I have seen
tremendous growth in less than 3 years in this particular area. I believe there are 1400 homes planned for in Union Park
and several hundred apartments ( with more to be built). There is also a new elementary school within the Union Park
community. In addition, the Elux housing development on 19th and Happy Valley recently opened with several hundred
units.
As you are aware, all along the 19th Ave corridor hundreds ( I would think closer to a thousand) of new housing units
have either opened or are being built. In addition near this area ( on Pinnacle Peak) there is an about to open Amazon
distribution center with 750 trucks!
The City is now considering a 470 apartment complex in this already condensed area. 19th Ave, nor Happy Valley, nor
Pinnacle Peak (as an alternate) can handle the amount of traffic these new developments will bring. Additionally you
have small and large businesses sprinkled amongst all of the new units.
I realize apartments are needed for the growing population of Phoenix. I’m confident there is land available for housing
developments in less congested and high growth areas. I implore you to deny Toll Brothers request. This area is already
too congested and already approved housing units and businesses (like Amazon) are not even open yet and contributing
to the congestion. For the safety of children attending the elementary school in Union Park and for the children at
Norterra Elementary off Jomax and 19th.
Please work with us and make safety a priority for those of us who live near this area, have to drive our children to
school in this area everyday, and already face severe traffic congestion.
I thank you in advance for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
Page 860
David O Simmons
From: Shantel hitchcock
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:57 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: I am a homeowner in this area, and I do not wish for these said multi family homes to
be built here at 19 ave and happy valley! We are becoming a fast over populated area!
We need not for this to happen!!...
Sent from my iPhone
Page 861
David O Simmons
From: Stephen Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:24 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
I am voicing opposition to the proposed Rezoning and potential apartment complex Referencing Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DA-
2-21-1. I believe this will lower our housing value and bring more crime to the area. I do not see this is anything
beneficial for our neighborhood and oppose any such rezoning or construction of any apartments at the referenced
location.
Stephen Baker Murphy
1647 W Briles Road
Phoenix AZ. 85085
Sent from my iPhone
Page 862
David O Simmons
From: vickie hunt
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:11 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Applications GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
Mr. Simmons,
I am writing with my request to be added to the attendance list for this meeting concerning applications GPV-DV-2-21-1
and #Z-48-21-1.
I along with my family and neighbors are extremely concerned with the amount of apartments being built on county
land around us. We don’t have the proper roads and resources for this growth. Our family, as well as our neighbors all
around us have been here for decades and have watched the city developers pick off land. Homes would be one thing,
but putting apartments and bungalows on every inch of vacant land is not only taking away the scenic beauty of the
desert but it’s putting all of us in a bad situation. Again, I’d like to be added to the meeting attendance so I can listen in.
Thank You,
Vickie Hunt
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
Page 863
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-48-21-1 (INFO ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2021
Request From C-O/M-O and RU-43 (Maricopa County)
Request To PUD
Location Approximately 825 feet south of the southwest corner of
23rd Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road
Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak
7 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided a detailed
overview of both the General Plan Amendment (GPA) request and the Rezoning
request. He started by highlighting the quality of the Toll Brothers brand and
quality of their products. He continued by highlighting the reasoning behind Toll
Brothers decision to move forward with the subject site. He stated that the area is
close to residential amenities, employment hubs and transportation corridors. He
also shared that this area is growing rapidly and there is a need for alternative
forms of housing in the area. Mr. Wood covered the request for the GPA and
provided reasoning behind the need for the map change to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. He went on to address community concerns that he was
aware of to include a stepback approach to building elevations along the northern
and eastern property boundaries and enhanced landscaping to act as a buffer to
nearby large lot residential. He also highlighted an open fencing concept that
would make the site look more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property
owners, giving them the benefit of the enhanced landscaping proposed. Mr.
Wood went over the site plan in detail highlighting that this proposal will be a
gated, luxury multifamily development with resort like interior courtyard
amenities. He highlighted that any noise generated from residents of the
community would be contained within the interior courtyards of the development,
completely surrounded by living units. Mr. Wood went o er the development
standards table. Further, Mr. Wood showcased the conceptual rendering of the
elevations, site plan and landscape plans depicting a high quality design that Toll
Brothers is known for.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil left the meeting at approximately 7:15, bringing quorum to 8.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 864
Public Comment:
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing directly north of the subject site, shared
concerns about increased traffic, increase in population density, crime, and the
character of the rural area changing.
Ms. Michelle Gardner, VPC member, asked Ms. Crawford what her greatest
concerns are.
Ms. Crawford shared that her greatest concerns are the proposed height and
traffic.
Ms. Diane Habener, residing east of the subject site, has concerns with the
proposed height and recommended a maximum of two-stories.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Ms. Habener if she resides within the
County Island.
Ms. Habener shared that she does reside within the County Island boundaries.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing north of the subject site, shared concerns about
loosing a perceived buffer zone between Norterra and the County Island, which
is currently zoned commercial. She shared that she and her neighbors were
expecting a single story commercial office use being built on this site. She
shared concerns related to proposed height, increase in traffic, and stated that
this PUD request is not wanted.
Mr. Clif Freedman, residing at 1716 Buckhorn Trail, shared that he is supportive
of the request. He shared that the concerns about proposed height are irrelevant
due to the existing entitlement son the site allowing up to four-stories. He shared
that he supports the project, supports Toll Brothers and highlighted that Toll
Brothers builds high end projects. Further, he shared that tenants of a high end
development such as this would not result in an increase in crime.
Mr. James Whatley shared that he is opposed to the request. He has concerns
about the character of the area changing and increase in population. He asked
that the zoning stay as it currently is.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood spoke to the concerns and shared that commercial zoning traffic
counts are much higher than residential uses. He also highlighted that the
majority of units are I bedroom, which may result in 2-3 people maximum
residing in a single unit. He introduced Ms. Dawn Cartier with Civ Tech, a traffic
engineering company, to speak on traffic volumes.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineers, went over the traffic report and
highlighted the anticipated number of trips per day that would be generated from
such a use, which is much lower than a commercial center would generate.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 865
Mr. Wood offered a rebuttal to the height concerns and highlighted the
stepbacks proposed and the enhanced landscaping that acts as an aesthetically
pleasing buffer between exiting large lot residential uses to the north and to the
east.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Mr. Wood if existing single-family homes
have already sold to Toll Brothers. He also wanted to confirm is self-storage was
directly adjacent.
Mr. Wood confirmed that there are property owners that have already sold to the
developer and that there is a self-storage use adjacent to the subject site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 866
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-48-21-1
Date of VPC Meeting December 9, 2021
Request From C-O/M-O (5.29 acres) and County RU-43 (Pending S-1)
(8.19 acres)
Request To PUD (13.48 acres)
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
Vote 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee
Members Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis,
Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis, Shipman and
Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
The Planning Commission will consider this request on January 6, 2022.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Deer
Valley and North Black Canyon Employment Centers, Comprehensive Bicycle
Master plan, Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles,
Zero Waste Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix
Plan. Mr. Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed
stipulations for the case. He also shared that an annexation request for the
eastern portion of the site is running concurrently with the GPA and rezoning
request.
Mr. Nick Wood, representing the applicant, provided a greatly detailed
presentation to include how this proposal is consistent with development trends
int eh surrounding area, the General Plan Land Use Map designation change,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation plans for the site, enhanced landscaping
standards proposed, and an explanation of the approved traffic study showing
how the proposed use will not adversely affect traffic flows int the area. Further,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 867
Mr. Wood elaborated on the high quality architectural embellishment proposed
for the façade, the view fencing, and the proximity to residential as well as the
building height in relation to residential and the more intense Norterra to the
west.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Keith Greenberg asked staff is the annexation request just included this site
or more land area surrounding the site.
Mr. Simmons, staff, hared that the annexation request is for the four residential
lots that make up the easter portion of the subject site. No other land area
surrounding the site is included int eh annexation request.
Mr. Greenberg inquired as to where ingress and egress was gong to occur on
the site.
Mr. Wood shared that the site plan configuration was updated due to Street
comments that Desert Hollow Drive was going to be improved, resulting in an
ingress/egress point there as well as an ingress/egress point off of 19th Avenue.
Further, he shared that queuing could occur on Desert Hollow Drive during peak
hours and a median will be installed along 19th Avenue, which will act as a traffic
calming feature.
Mr. Greenberg asked how many living units are currently proposed.
Mr. Wood shared that a maximum of 470 units are proposed.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo shared that there are many other apartment complexes
int eh area and their traffic flows do not have an adverse effect on local traffic
patterns. She shared that a commercial use on this site would generate much
higher traffic volumes.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked if 19th Avenue was going to improved.
Mr. Simmons shared that 19th Avenue will be improved in accordance with the
Cross section A requirements of the Street Classification map.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, explained the traffic study and went into detail
about traffic patters resulting from specific uses.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked what the rental rates were and what is the current
proposed density.
Mr. Wood shared that the density proposed is 34 dwelling units per acre, which
is much lower than a typical multifamily request he represents. Further, he
shared the rental rates will be $1.76 a square foot which translates to $1200.00
for a one bedroom.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 868
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked what the original proposed number of units
were prior to making modifications to the site plan as a result of the improvement
requirements for Desert Hollow Lane.
Mr. Wood shared that the original proposed number of units was 500.
Mr. Stuart Kimball applauded the applicant on such a detailed presentation and
their public outreach efforts. He also stated that with the required 19th Avenue
improvement, traffic concerns should be eliminated as lanes will be added.
Public Comment:
Ms. Laura Bates, residing at 1744 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
increased traffic volumes and requested a secondar traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Brian Bates, residing at 1744 W Parsons Rd, shared that he too has traffic
concerns as there are equestrians in the areas well as livestock. He also shared
concerns in regard to loss of property values as a result of this development and
drainage concerns.
Mr. Nick Wood explained that grading and drainage goes through a rigorous
plan review proves to include on-site retention. He shared that, if needed, large
retention compartments will be installed underground o eh subject site.
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing at 1736 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
equestrians in the area, the character of the area changing and devaluations of
properties.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked how many people showed up for the public meetings.
Ms. Crawford stated she believes the numbers were skewed due to COVID and
the meetings taking place over the holiday season.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing at 1717 W. Yearling Rd, shared concerns about
livestock in the area needing large dirt lot, which will create dust and other
nuisances for future residents. Further, she shared concerns about the character
of the area changing.
Ms. Marjorie McCaw, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing.
Mr. Stephen Baker-Murphy, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about
buffers, transitions between uses in the area, character of area changing and
devaluation of existing large lot residential properties due to proposed
development.
Chairman joseph Grossman asked Mr. Baker-Murphy how long he has lived in
his home.
Mr. Baker-Murphy shared that he has resided in his home for four years.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 869
Ms. Kim Cocuzza, residing on 17th Ave, shared concerns about the character of
the area changing and increased traffic.
Ms. Alison McKee, residing at 1219 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing, livestock in the area and traffic volume
increasing.
Mr. Cliff Freedman, residing at 1716 W. Buckhorn Trail, spoke in support of the
proposal. He highlighted that more housing options are needed in this area and
the City of Phoenix is growing rapidly and housing demand cannot keep up.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood stated that housing needs are a result of supply and demand. He
shared that the City of Phoenix is currently the fastest growing city in the nation
attracting over 90k new residents per year. He asked for a recommendation for
approval.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked is this site lies within the boundaries of the Deer Valley
Airport Overlay (DVAO).
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that it does not lie within the DVAO.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked staff to share details about the proposed bungalow
project taking place just to the north of the subject site.
Mr. Simmons shared that the bungalow project is located within the boundaries
of Maricopa County. Therefore, staff does not have purview over that project and
cannot speak to it.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo stated that she is sympathetic and understanding of the
publics concerns. However, growth is inevitable for this area considering the
incredible investments going in all around. She also stated that traffic is not going
to be of grave concern considering the use. Further, she stated that more
housing options are critically needed in this area.
MOTION:
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo motioned to approve Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1,
per the staff recommendation
Mr. Mark Lewis seconded the motion.
VOTE: 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee Members
Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis, Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy,
Lewis, Shipman and Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 870
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-48-21-1 (Lumara PUD)
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: C-O/M-O and County RU-43 (Pending S-1)
To: PUD
Acreage: 13.48
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 9/9/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 12/9/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-0 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation with an additional and modified stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-48-21-1, per the Deer
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into
the record, and a modification to Stipulation No. 3 per the applicants request.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The site is located at the intersection of two arterial streets and in close proximity to an
employment center west of 19th Avenue. The proposed standards in the PUD provide a
transition from more intense development on the west side of 19th Avenue to
undeveloped property to the east of the subject site.
2. The proposed development will provide diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to designated employment centers.
3. The Development Narrative contains standards that exceed ordinance requirements
Page 871
including enhanced setbacks along three sides of the site as well as enhanced
landscape standards.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street
Section. An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-foot-
wide sidewalk is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape area is
required.
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th Avenue,.
for the full limits of the project THE MEDIAN SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE
FOR FULL MOVEMENT (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) AT 19TH AVENUE AND
DESERT HOLLOW DRIVE, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the Desert
Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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
Page 872
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9 PRIOR TO 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 873
Attachment F
210-04-367
210-04-364 210-10-020C
210-04-378 210-04-375
210-04-480
210-04-382210-04-371
210-10-018A
210-04-368
210-04-379 210-04-374
210-10-014C
210-10-0 20D
210-04-372
210-04-383210-04-370
210-04-478 210-04-365
210-04-369
210-04-380 210-04-373
210-04-366 210-10-010 210-10-018B
210-04-381
210-10-0 14E
210-04-437
210-04-384 210-10-0 31A
210-10-018C
210-04-436
210-04-385
19TH DR
210-04-386
210-04-435 210-10-0 14F
210-04-387
210-04-434 210-10-014A
210-04-388
210-04-433
210-04-389
210-04-432
210-04-431
210-04-390
210-04-391
210-04-430
210-04-392
210-04-429
210-04-393
210-04-428
210-10-008G 210-10-016A
210-04-394
210-10-008F
210-04-427
210-04-395
210-04-426 210-10-027A
210-04-396
210-04-425
210-04-479
210-04-424
210-04-397
210-04-423
210-04-398
210-04-422
210-04-399
210-04-400
210-10-0 03
210-04-421
210-04-404
19TH AVE
210-04-409 210-04-403
210-04-408
210-04-405 210-04-402
210-04-407 210-04-401
210-10-009B
210-10-008B 210-10-008D
210-04-406 210-04-480
210-10-0 30B
210-04-485
17TH AVE 210-10-013A
210-10-0 19H
210-10-0 19F
210-10-0 19D
210-10-023A
210-04-484
210-10-0 19G
210-10-0 17F 210-10-0 29K
210-10-0 29M 210-10-005
210-10-0 17H 210-10-0 29L
Legend
Zoning Petition Area
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Proposed Amendment Area
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 1/18 = 6%
Lots/Tracts/Condos
% Area = 0.40ac./26.02ac. = 2%
Signed Petition
210-05-022 210-07-050B 210-07-083 3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
210-07-084 210-07-089
Petition Verification Map
0 70 140 Feet Page 874 for Z-48-21-1
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 1/14/2022
Page 875
Page 876
Page 877
Page 878
Page 879
Page 880
Page 881
Page 882
Page 883
Page 884
Page 885
Page 886
Page 887
Page 888
Page 889
Page 890
Page 891
Page 892
Page 893
Page 894
Page 895
Page 896
Page 897
Page 898
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; pjaramillo@swlaw.com
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I apologize I had a family emergency come up last night so I was not able to attend the call. I would like to show my
support of the Toll Brothers and their proposed project on 19 th ave. I believe Toll brother builds a great product and
confident that it will bring quality living spaces to the area.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Lupo, Matthew J.
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel; Jaramillo, Paola
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Mr. Lupo,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 and GPA-V-2-21-1. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
support.
The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee (DV VPC) will hear the cases at the December 9, 2021 meeting. I have added
your name to the speaker roster for the December 9, 2021 meeting. Please click on the registration link on the attached
agenda to register for the meeting.
The Planning Commission will hear the case at the January 6, 2022 meeting and the City Council will make a final
decision on February 2, 2022.
The applicants hearing draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-48-21-1)
Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.
Page 899
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:50 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I would like to request a link for case Z-48-21-1, items #3,4 and request to speak in support of Proposed project at 19 th
ave and Happy Valley road.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Page 900
David O Simmons
From: RS B
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers project
Dear Councilmember O’Brien.
My name is Rosa Somohano and I am a resident in North Phoenix
Our area is growing tremendously and I am thankful for the many employers moving into the area. What is needed now
is more housing options. I received a presentation on the proposed Toll Brothers projects to be located at Happy Valley
Rd. and 19thAve and I really like it. It has so many great amenities and most importantly is a higher end development.
This will encourage and promote safety for our area and be attractive to the many employees who are now working in
our area.
I also appreciate that they will be screening residents for income and criminal history, developing out some of 19 th Ave
and once finished, will enhance that corner that is badly in need of development.
I hope you will consider supporting this project, which I believe will be perfect for our area
Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays.
Best,
Rosa Somohano
2526 W Rancho Laredo Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85085
(770)595-2384
Page 901
David O Simmons
From: SCIA
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Please support Toll Brothers at 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Dear Councilmember O’Brien,
My name is Clif Freedman and I am the President of Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association. We represent the
area of zip code 85085.
Our mission is to advocate for proper development that supports the housing needs in our area.
With the large number of employers moving into Phoenix and particularly into the North Valley, it is imperative we
offer housing options.
A mixture of options is necessary to support the various preferences of those individuals moving into the
area. When looking at multi family, we specifically prefer controlled environments that promote and ensure the
safety and aesthetics our northern area enjoys. For this and many other reasons we whole heartily support the
proposed Toll Brothers project located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley Rd.
This project will:
Maintain a Gated Entry
Will be Screening residents for income and criminal history
Provides an amazing building design that includes enhanced landscape and superior architecture
It’s height is appropriate for the area
IT will promote walkability in the area
It also offers and extensive menu of amenities that screams “high end” housing.
Further:
It takes an undeveloped piece of land and enhances that corner
It is a downzoning – which is incredibly important to our association. The downzoning will decrease traffic
in the area
This project will be building out 19th Ave – which is incredibly valuable for current traffic needs
Toll Brothers is a reputable company who holds a reputation of building and managing beautiful
properties.
For these reasons – I encourage your support of this project.
The additional housing is greatly needed in the area and this is exactly the type of multi housing we should
celebrate.
Thank you for your time.
Clif Freedman
1716 West Buckhorn Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85085
623-444-9445
Clif Freedman, President
Page 902
Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association SCIA
SonoranCitizens@gmail.com
Page 903
David O Simmons
From: matthew crook
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Case #Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members O’Brien and Simmons,
I support this project at 19th Ave and Happy Valley. It’s a needed improvement to the area. More housing and business
for the area.
Matthew Crook
General Manager IHOP 3083
2103 W Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 904
David O Simmons
From: brebek3@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:48 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1, Toll Brothers - Happy Valley and 19th ave
Working for businesses in the area at 19 ave and Happy Valley. I support this project. This type of
housing is needed in the area. This also supports revenue for businesses in the area
Page 905
David O Simmons
From: Amer Atwan
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley And 19th AVE
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. House of this type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city
Amer atwan: Director Of Operations
Mesquite Fresh Street Mex
1730 West Happy Valley Rd
Phoenix Az, 85085
--
Amer Atwan
Corporate team member
Phone Number: (602) 775 3019
Page 906
David O Simmons
From: Jennifer Hammond
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this area. It will also creat more revenue for the businesses and
city.
Thank you,
Jennifer Hammond
IHOP
2103 w Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 907
David O Simmons
From: Scott Dennin
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:55 PM
To: counsil.district.1@phoenix.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Counsel Members: O'Brien and Simmons
We support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue
for the business and city.
Scott Dennin - District Trainer
AZ - District 015
SmartStop Self Storage
(602) 657-6725 - Cell
www.smartstop.com [smartstop.com]
Page 908
David O Simmons
From: Lan Ngo
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1
Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city.
Name: Lan Ngo
Company:
Happy Feet Nails & Spa 3
1730 W Happy Valley Rd Suite 103
Phoenix AZ 85085
623-248-54209
Page 909
David O Simmons
From: David Dominguez
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:46 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Fwd: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll brothers happy valley and 19th ave
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Dominguez
Date: January 12, 2022 at 2:43:26 PM MST
To: council.district.1@phoenix.gob
Subject: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll brothers happy valley and 19th ave
Council members : O’Brian and Simmons
I support this project . Housing of that types is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more
revenue for the business and city
Obed David Dominguez
Jacksons Car Wash
2591 W happy Valley Rd
Sent from my iPhone
Page 910
David O Simmons
From: Larry Chandler
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # Z-48-21-1 Till Brother's Happy Valley & 19th ave
Members: O'Brien and Simmons ......... I support this project. More business for all of us!
From Larry Chandler @ AutoZone
Happy Valley Rd 1750 w. Happy Valley
Page 911
David O Simmons
From: Johnson, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 5:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Regarding Case# Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley 19Th Ave
To council members O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of the type is needed in this area for community for growth. It will also create
more revenue in the area and foster small businesses.
Thanks
Chris Johnson | Assistant General Manager
Courtyard by Marriott Phoenix North/Happy Valley
Residence Inn by Marriott Phoenix North/Happy Valley
2029 W. Whispering Wind Drive| Phoenix, AZ 85085
P: 623.580.8844 | F: 623.580.8845 | cjohnson@ncghotels.com
www.marriott.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]/phxbc | www.marriott.com
[nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]/phxrb | www.ncghotels.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
Exceptional Hotels. Inspiring Careers. | www.ncgcareers.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
Sign Up to Stay in Touch! [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential, privileged and/or
proprietary information which is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these
documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete this e-mail, any attachments, and all copies.
Page 912
Attachment H
David O Simmons
From: Wayne Hudgeons
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 (Companion Case Z-48-21-1):
My name is Wayne Hudgeons and I live at 25406 N 17th ave.
I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the request to amend the General Plan Land Use of the 13.48 acres. I
feel that this community is great with the zoning that we have and that is why we purchased a place to call home. The
rezoning to multi family dwellings or apartments does not go with the character of our neighborhood. When we bought
a house here to make our long term home we knew there would be development, we are not opposed to development.
We made a conscious choice after looking at the zoning, knowing that there was the study for 300 feet of commercial
along Happy Valley and there would be a medical building on 19th ave, that would add value to our community. The rest
of the undeveloped land in the General Land Use Map and current zoning was R-43. Another reason would be the extra
noise and light pollution would not be a good fit with our rural community of horses and livestock, even with light
shades and directional lighting it very stressful to horses. The extra traffic that would come through our private
community maintained roads would also be a major burden.
Best Regards,
Wayne Hudgeons
623-340-0579
Page 913
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:44 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and DV:2-21-1
This is Martha Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave, Phoenix,Az 85085. I am requesting that you please consider our way of life. We
are a rural area, we want to stay this way. One house per acre.
I am against placing apartments of any kind in this small area. I am s urprised at all the apartment buildings along 19th Ave
North of Pinnacle Peak, along Happy Valley at 17th ave ,again at 35th ave and along Jomax and I 17. We simply do not
need any more apartments.
Thank you for listening and please give our area some consideration.
Mrs Martha Tallant
25814 N, 17th Ave
Phoenix,Az 85085
Page 914
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:07 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Melissa Crawford; Julie Burns
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
Mr. Simmons,
I was unable to join this meeting, but certainly we are quite disappointed from the things I have heard about
how the meeting in general was conducted and the evident Approval by the Commission. We had high hopes
based upon earlier Staff comments involving the protection from high density for the east side of 19th Ave.
I have several Inquiries / Requests related to this meeting / decision;
First, is there a link to a visual and audio recording of this meeting as I would like to review that footage, and
are there transcribed minutes that can be reviewed ? I would appreciate a link to any and all pertaining to that.
Secondly, in Maricopa County there is an opportunity to Appeal decisions made by their Commission,
RE:
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
1. Appeal FormIf the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed on
a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received within 15
calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the
Board of Supervisors hearing.
does the City offer a similar or any appeal process to your decisions?
My understanding from things I have heard is that the presenter for Toll Brothers and another person stated
many untruths in reference to our neighborhood and the people that reside here.That is one of the many issues
that I feel we should have the opportunity to rebut, as well as being able to examine the names on the list of
people he purported were all in favor of this build. I also understand that there was a gentleman speaking that
stated or implied that he was someone with some kind of authority to represent the people of the 85085 zip
code. I would like to know more on that issue as well. I can promise you that he does not in any way represent
anyone that we are aware of within our County Island and those are the people that should be listened to with
the most concern.
None of us are against housing on this property, we are aware housing is in short supply, but that supply should
be a variety of offerings, as apartments are generally not where people choose to live their entire lives. And as
stated over and over again throughout the years by the Deer Valley Planning Commission, transitional areas
such as ours where people do have actual homes with actual families that are already well established in their
lives on R-43 land deserve some thoughtful consideration as to what will appropriately border their properties.
We are having to maneuver our way through this process all while we work our full time jobs and juggle life.
Page 915
Now we are all presented with the biggest threat to our environment and Rural zoning and we find it quite
unfair that people with deep pockets and no real ties to our community can just come in and bully their way
through a process without someone giving careful consideration to those of us who live here (and we don't feel
that is happening).
Maybe it would be appropriate for the people who will make the final decisions to come out to our
neighborhood to see and speak to those of us who actually RESIDE here, we can't offer fancy presentations, but
coffee and cake could be provided, so consider that an open invitation Ms. O'Brien and colleagues. I'm sure
one of us would be happy to host.
I would appreciate any and all information that you can supply to help us pursue these matters further.
Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
As an example we would like to point out that we do not feel that the principals quoted below are being applied
to our neighborhood and this developers request. We at a minimum deserve more time and ways to present our
side of this, keeping in mind we have limited funds but alot of heart. Working within the numerous and diverse
work schedules is challenging for us all which is why we ask to somehow find more time for us to present our
case.
https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00472.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iWTGrEX7DmCh5vtN
_x-995n-sdKyXOZWaROqUKVlXs_by27dEUXBoVAY
Quotes;
"Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new
development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance"
"Require appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses"
"The village is characterized by its desert setting and mountains, diverse and growing communities, and large
employment centers. It is distinguished by its attraction for business, variety of
housing types and density ranges"
"Additionally, the village is an active area of the city for the construction of single-family homes and
redevelopment. Development within the Deer Valley Village should integrate into and incorporate elements of
the natural desert environment."
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPHX%20General%20Plan%202015%20Executive%20Summ
ary.pdf
A BLUEPRINT FOR A CONNECTED OASIS - Phoenix, Arizona
Exete Say THE BLUEPRINT: A STRATEGIC SET OF TOOLS Using the Five Core Values as the foundation for
the Vision, the updated General Plan will also contain a list of strategic Tools within each of the Five Core
Values that will be implemented by staff,
Page 916
www.phoenix.gov
Quotes;
"Phoenix will continue to be like no other city in the world. A place steeped in history, defined by its beautiful desert
setting, activated by unique neighborhoods and
businesses"
"Celebrate our Diverse Communities and Neighborhoods"
" Certainty & Character - Through the development of guiding principles for every Phoenix neighborhood, residents will
have greater levels of certainty about their quality of life and protections to ensure that their neighborhood remains
unique and livable."
Page 917
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:06 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; undefined gaxiola+40phoenix+2Egov@namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Cc: Julie Burns; Melissa Crawford
Subject: City of Phoenix ‐ GPA‐DV‐2‐21‐1 and Z‐48‐21‐1
The Zoning in our County Island is R‐43 and at least 50% plus of our County Island built and conform with R‐43 zoning. That is why
we bought and built on this property 30+ years ago. At a Minimum your decisions should lean heavily to those of us that did not buy
property zoned for something else becasue it was cheaper than buying land zoned for our intended purpose. BOTH of these
proposed developments (even though one is City and the other County) are taking advantage of the residents within this island and
obviously have much deeper pockets than we.
The people that own and reside in the area that will be greatly impacted by this type of density change. Therefore the opposition
from homeowners within our entire County Island area should be given the most weight.
It should also take into account the following;
The Owners of Parcels ‐ 210‐10‐008B ‐ 210‐10‐008D ‐ 210‐10‐008F ‐ 210‐10‐008G ‐ should have NO VOICE in this development as
they have already been strong armed into selling out to the developer
The Owners of The Bungalows at Norterra should also have NO VOICE Parcels 210‐10‐027A , 210‐10‐031A, 210‐10‐020D, 210‐1‐
=020C, 210‐10‐010
And both Developers should be treated as hostile voices as they are supporting each other in their bids to effect unalterable life
changing events within our land‐locked County Island.
The majority of the Parcels within our boundaries ( 19th Ave‐Jomax‐CAP‐Happy Valley) are Owned and Occupied Homes built within
the constraints of Maricopa County R‐43 Zoning. Based upon Documents published over the Years by the Deer Valley Planning
Commission, we had every reason to expect our area would remain as is (even if the City of Phoenix successfully annexed us all) . We
understand there is a need for housing, buy there is a need for all types of housing and anything built of the vacant lands within our
boundaries should be with that in mind. Multi Family dwelling is not transitional to R‐43. Single Family Homes on no less than .33
acres could be seen as transitional. It might also be seen as quite desirable to those who would prefer not to live in high density
developments.
There have been statements by the Developers and some Planning Staff that would imply the residents of our area do not really care
as we haven’t been vocal enough or “organized” in our opposition to these Developments. Please keep in mind that especially over
the last 2 years life has become very busy and stressful for many many people. None of us are being paid to sit in these meetings
over and over again, it is difficult to even keep up with any information as written letters are not sent to each of us as homeowners,
signs are installed with no dates, then dates, then dates that change AND we are having to OPPOSE (2) developments side by side
that both want the same outcome AT THE SAME TIME !! It may not seem like it to you but we are trying our best to show you with
the resources and time that we have. I have spent many of my days off work speaking with and trying to compose coherent and to
the point letters. I don’t find that easy as I am a long winded person (I am aware) but I am also passionate and find it difficult to be
anything else when we are speaking of losing what we have spent our lives building.
Phoenix is in need of ALL TYPES of housing and our perimeter has already been subjected to higher density developments, now you
want to come directly INTO our small “Island area” with even higher density allowances. I cannot comprehend how that can be
defined as Transitional. Just one of these developments will increases the current population by probably more than 300 %. We
implore you to protect those that need protecting and VOTE NO to these changes
Respectfully
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85085
Page1 918
Report
Application Z-48-21-1 (Lumara PUD) - Approximately 270 Feet North of the
Northeast Corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road (Ordinance G-6958)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-48-21-
1 and rezone the site from C-O/M-O (Commercial Office/Major Office option) and
Maricopa County RU-43 (Pending S-1) (Pending Ranch or Farm Residence District) to
PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily residential. This is a companion
case and must be heard following GPA-DV-2-21-1.
Summary
Current Zoning: C-O/M-O and RU-43 (Maricopa County)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 13.48 acres
Proposed Use: Multifamily residential
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Sept. 9,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 9,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 10-0-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
recommendation with an additional and modified stipulation, by a vote of 6-2.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 13, 2022.
Location
Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley
Road.
Council District: 1
Page 603
Parcel Addresses: 25255 N. 19th Ave.; and 1734, 1737, 1745 and 1748 W. Desert
Hollow Drive.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 604
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-48-21-1) FROM C-O/M-O (COMMERCIAL
OFFICE/MAJOR OFFICE OPTION) AND MARICOPA COUNTY
RU-43 (PENDING S-1) (MARICOPA COUNTY RU-43, PENDING
RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 13.48-acre site located approximately 270
feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road in a portion of
Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit
“A,” is hereby changed from “C-O/M-O” (Commercial Office/Major Office option) and
“Maricopa County RU-43 (Pending S-1)” (Maricopa County RU-43, Pending Ranch or
Farm Residence District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
Page 605
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street
Section. An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-
foot-wide sidewalk is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape
area is required
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards
table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands,
landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th
Avenue. The median shall be designed to provide full movement
(north/south/east/west) at 19th Avenue and Desert Hollow Drive, as approved
by the Planning and Development and Street Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the
Desert Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 606
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this
development. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study
is reviewed and approved by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9 Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Page 607
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (2 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 608
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-48-21-1
Parcel No. 1 Per Deed 20060434557 (APN 210-10-030B):
Lots 39, Section 6, 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.
Parcel No. 2 Per Deed 20060434557 (APN 210-10-023A):
Lots 43, Section 6, 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.
Parcel No. 3 Per Deed 20180399909 (APN 210-10-008F):
Lot 40, Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
Except the North 330 feet of the East 165 feet thereof, which said Lot 40 is also known
as the West Half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
Except the South half;
Except all coal, oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved in patent from the United
States of America.
Parcel No. 4 Per Deed 200907986 (APN 210-10-008G):
The East 165 Feet of The North 339 Feet of G.L.O. Lot 40 (sometimes referred to as
the west half of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter) of Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base
and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona;
An undivided interest in that part of G.L.O. Lot 34 of Section 6, Township 4 North,
Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona,
described as follows:
Beginning 50 Feet North of the Southwest Corner of said G.L.O. Lot 34;
Thence North 20 Feet;
Thence East 20 Feet;
Page 609
Thence South 20 Feet;
Thence West 20 Feet to the Point Of Beginning;
Except all coal, oil, gas and other minerals as reserved in the patent to the United
States of America, Recorded in Docket 4299, Page 244.
Parcel No. 5 Per Deed Number 20120544055 (APN 210-10-008B):
The Southwest Quarter of Lot 40, Section 6, 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 the Patent.
Parcel No. 6 Per Deed Number 20150160050 (APN 210-10-008D):
The Southeast Quarter of the following described property:
Lot 40, Section 6, Township 4 North, Range 3 East of the Gila and Salt River Base and
Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona.
Except all the coal, oil, gas and other mineral deposits as reserved in the patent to said
land.
Page 610
Page 611
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report Z-48-21-1
Lumara PUD
December 7, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee December 9, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: C-O/M-O (5.29 acres) and County RU-43
(Pending S-1) (8.19 acres)
Request To: PUD (13.48 acres)
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow
multifamily residential
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the
northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy
Valley Road
Owner Happy Valley 19, LLC
Applicant Toll Brothers
Representative Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Commercial, Mixed Use
(Commercial / Commerce Park)
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-DV-2-21-1): Residential
15+ dwelling units per acre
Approximately 70-foot
19th Avenue Major Arterial
east half street
Street Map
Classification
25-foot south half
Desert Hollow Drive Local Street
street
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 proposed Lumara Planned Unit Development (PUD) supports increased intensity by
Page 612
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
proposing multifamily residential that is compatible in scale and intensity with uses in the
surrounding the Happy Valley Road corridor. The development is located in a mixed-use
corridor where nearby properties are multifamily or commercial. The project site is also in
close proximity to a designated employment center. The concentration of people near
employment uses promotes the sustainability of nearby commercial uses. The requested
PUD will facilitate ongoing investment and development of existing businesses in these
areas.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN: Create new development or redevelopment
that is sensitive to the scale and character of the surrounding neighborhoods and
incorporates adequate development standards to prevent negative impact(s) on the
residential properties.
The request facilitates additional residential options adjacent to major arterial streets and
in close proximity to Norterra and the larger Happy Valley Road corridor. The proposed
development is sensitive to surrounding residential and commercial development, thereby
warranting the reasonable levels of height and density proposed between the Norterra
development to the west and the more rural residential to the east.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPILE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The Lumara PUD proposes landscaping around all four sides of the building. A detached
sidewalk along 19th Avenue framed with landscape areas will provide thermal comfort for
pedestrians. The PUD also requires that a minimum of 75 percent of public pedestrian
pathways be shaded.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) North Black Canyon and Deer Valley
Employment Centers – See background item No. 5 below.
Tree and Shade Master Plan – See background item No. 8
Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See background item No. 9
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See background item No. 10
Zero Waste PHX – See background item No. 11
Housing Phoenix Plan – See background item No. 12
Page 613
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
Vacant and single-family C-O/M-O and County RU-43
On Site
residential (Pending S-1)
Convenience store, retail
South establishments, and self- C-2 and C-2 SP
service storage facility
North (across County RU-43
Desert Hollow Vacant
Drive)
Vacant and Self-service S-1 and C-2 SP
East
storage
West (across Multifamily residential, electrical PUD
19th Avenue) substation, and vacant
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone a 13.48-acre site located approximately 270 feet north of the
northeast corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road. The request is to rezone
from C-O/M-O (Commercial Office/Major Office Option) and Maricopa County RU-43
(Pending S-1) (Pending Ranch or Farm Residence) to PUD (Planned Unit
Development) to allow multifamily residential uses.
2. The subject site consists of six parcels that are under the ownership of Happy Valley
19, LLC, pending the approval of this rezoning request. The site currently contains four
single-family residential homes on the eastern portion, which are located within
unincorporated Maricopa County. An active annexation request, Annexation No. 517,
is pending on this portion of the site and is running concurrently with this rezoning
request. The western portion of the subject site, adjacent to 19th Avenue, was
annexed into the City of Phoenix on January 21, 2006. At that time this portion of the
subject site and the surrounding area vastly consisted of vacant land and large lot
residential uses in the unincorporated Maricopa County site to the east. The current C-
O/M-O zoning designation was established through Rezoning Case No. Z-155-05.
Maricopa County historic aerial imagery indicate the surrounding sites to the west and
south began to develop in approximately 2017. There has been increased
development in the immediate area both at Norterra and along the Interstate 17
corridor.
The proposed PUD will require the developer to provide updated infrastructure as
needed and determined through the Planning and Development Department’s site
development process.
Page 614
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Historic Aerials, Source: Maricopa County Assessor’s
3. The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject site is Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Commercial, and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce Park).
The proposal is not consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Map
designation, thus a minor General Plan Amendment case (GPA-DV-2-21-1) requesting
a designation of Residential 15+ dwelling units per acre was filed as a companion case
to this request.
The General Plan Land Use Map designation to the north of the subject parcel is
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre. To the west, across 19th Avenue, the
General Plan Land Use Map designation is Mixed Use (Commercial/Commerce
Park/Business Park/Residential 5 to 10 / 10 to 15 / 15+ dwelling units per acre). The
General Plan Land Use Map designation to the south is Mixed Use (Commercial /
Commerce Park). To the east, the General Plan Land Use Map designations are
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre and Mixed Use (Commercial / Commerce
Park). The existing and proposed General Plan Land Use Maps are depicted in the
graphic below.
Page 615
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
General Plan Land Use Map, Source:
Department
Page 616
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES
4. North
The properties to the north of the subject site, which are located within Maricopa
County, are vacant land zoned RU-43.
South
Directly south of the subject site is a one-story gas station and convenience store
zoned C-2 through Rezoning Case No. Z-40-01, commercial retail establishments
zoned C-2 through Rezoning Case No. Z-25-11 and a self-service storage facility zone
C-2 SP through Rezoning Case No. Z-SP-7-16.
East
To the east of the north eastern portion of the site is vacant land zoned S-1 through
Annexation No. 499.
West
West of the subject,
across 19th Avenue, is
a mixed-use
development called
Norterra, which was
zoned PUD through
Rezoning Case No. Z-
3-15.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department
Page 617
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
5. The subject site is located just to the
east of the boundaries of the
Maricopa Association of
Governments designated North
Black Canyon employment center
and just to the north and east of the
city designated Deer Valley Major
Employment Center.
A mix of housing types are
encouraged in and around
employment centers and
commercial corridors. The North
Black Canyon employment center
profile provided by the City of
Phoenix Community and Economic
Development Department identifies
this corridor as having
a mix of workers in the current Employment Center Map, Source: City of Phoenix
labor pool that mirrors the metro Planning and Development Department
area with a solid base of management
as well as sales, clerical and administrative personnel. Workers in the North Black
Canyon area are also well educated. Providing additional residential options in close
proximity to the nearby office spaces in this rapidly growing area will add to the
sustainability of the established employment center and the Norterra area overall.
The site is located near two major arterials streets. An existing bus stop and bus
stop pad is located on the east side of 19th Avenue just to the south of the site. A
The area surrounding the subject site has seen a significant amount of investment in
the last 10 years. This investment has positioned the area between Jomax Road
and north of the Deer Valley Airport as a corridor for mixed-use, industrial, commerce
park and multifamily residential development.
PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning district. The 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 writes a document proposing standards and guidelines that are tailored to the
context of a site on a case by case basis.
Where the Lumara PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions shall be applied.
7. Below is a summary of the proposed standards for the subject site as described in the
attached PUD Development Narrative date stamped November 22, 2021. The
Page 618
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
proposed standards were designed to allow for a multifamily development that
continues enhancement along 19th Avenue for a more pedestrian-friendly
environment.
List of Uses
The Development Narrative lists multifamily residential as the only permitted use, in
addition to temporary uses. A maximum of 470 residential dwelling units are permitted
within the boundaries of the PUD.
Conceptual Site Plan
The development
proposes a primary and
secondary access
points along 19th
Avenue. The project
proposes two 49-foot
tall multifamily buildings
with surface parking.
There are three amenity
courtyard areas
proposed, which are
reserved as private
common open space.
One is located in the
outdoor courtyard near
the building main
entrance and the other
two are located in the
eastern building. There
are also several smaller
structures containing
living units around the
site as well as covered
surface parking
canopies. 19th
Avenue will contain an Conceptual Site Plan, Source: Collaborative Design Studio
enhanced streetscape
with a minimum five-foot detached sidewalk framed by landscape areas that will
include trees, shrubs, and live ground cover.
Page 619
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Development Standards
The following is a table of proposed development standards for the project.
Maximum Residential Unit
Count: Maximum Dwellings 470 dwelling units
Maximum Density 34.90 dwelling units per gross acre
Minimum Lot Width/Depth No Minimum
Minimum Building Setbacks From Property Line
North (Desert Hollow Drive) 10 feet
North (Internal Property Line) 105 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 60 feet
East (Internal Property Line) 59 feet
West (19th Avenue) 62 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 59 feet
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
North (Desert Hollow Drive) 10 feet
North (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
South (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
East (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
West (19th Avenue) 20 feet
West (Internal Property Line) 10 feet
Maximum Building Height 49 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 50 percent of total net site area
Minimum Open Space 15 percent of total gross site area
The PUD Development Narrative proposed a maximum height of 49 feet. The current
entitlements on the western half of the site, C-O/M-O, allows a maximum height of 56
feet. The S-1 zoning district allows a maximum height of 30 feet. The proposed
building height is based on the aforementioned site characteristics and an attempt to
be consistent with the building height of approved projects in the area. The maximum
approved height for Norterra, across 19th Avenue, is 70 feet. The proposed building
height would act as a transition between the more intense Norterra development on
the west side of 19th Avenue and the large lot rural residential in the unincorporated
Maricopa County island to the east of the subject site.
Page 620
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Open Space Plan, Source: Collaborative Design Studio
The lot coverage proposed for the project is 50 percent. The additional lot coverage
beyond a typical multifamily project is offset by a generous open space standard of a
minimum of 15 percent and is consistent with other similar projects in the corridor. The
proposed 19th Avenue (western) building setback is 62 feet with a 20-foot landscape
setback.
Page 621
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Landscape Standards
The PUD proposes landscaping along
all sides of the development. The
Development Narrative requires a
minimum 20-foot wide landscape
setback be provided along the 19th
Avenue street frontage. Furthermore,
the landscape setbacks along the
streets shall incorporate 2-inch, 3-inch,
and 4-inch caliper trees, 5 five-gallon
shrubs and 50 percent live ground
cover.
As stipulated, the streetscape along
19th Avenue will include a minimum
five-foot wide detached sidewalk with
a minimum thirteen-foot wide
landscape strip located between the
sidewalk and back of curb. This is
comparable to other recently approved
projects in the area. The landscaping
will provide for a pedestrian-friendly
environment with 75 percent shade at
maturity along the public sidewalks
and 50 percent shade along private Conceptual Landscape Plan, Source:
pedestrian pathways. Collaborative Design Studio
Parking Standards
The proposal
requires a minimum
amount of parking
per unit in addition
to unreserved visitor
parking. In addition,
the PUD proposes a
drop off and pick up
location for ride
share services.
Parking Standards, Source: Snell & Wilmer
The PUD also proposes a minimum of
0.25 bicycle spaces per unit with a maximum of 50 spaces which will comply with
Section 1307.H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Page 622
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Fences/Walls
All site fences and walls will be consistent with Section 703.A of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Lighting Plan
All lighting will be consistent with the standards of Section 704 (Environmental
Performance Standards) and Section 507 Tab. A of the Zoning Ordinance and Section
23-100 of the City Code.
Design Guidelines and Standards
The Development Narrative includes design standards that promote pedestrian
circulation on and around the site. The graphic below illustrates the proposed
pedestrian network for the site.
Design standards ensure that the building Pedestrian Circulation Plan,
Source: Biltform Architecture
facade will contain 15 percent glazing, 10
percent cement board, 55 percent plaster and
4 percent metal railings. Elevations of the building will provide one private balcony per
unit. All building elevations will have four-sided architecture, which results in visual
interest. The final elevations and building plans submitted to the City will incorporate
the provisions outlined in the development narrative and shall follow the Design
Guidelines of Section 507.Tab A of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
Page 623
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
The landscape
design shall
have a
uniformed
streetscape
design and a
uniform
perimeter
design. Several
residential
amenities are
also proposed,
which are outlined below. Conceptual Elevations, Source: The Hampton Group
Amenities
The PUD proposes amenities intended for use by residents and guests to include a
clubhouse, fitness center, swimming pool and/or spa with at least three of the
following:
• Lounge deck
• Shaded outdoor dining area
• Water features
• Barbeque grills
• Fire features
• Seating nodes
• Trellis areas
Signage
The proposed sign standards shall comply with Section 705 of the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance.
Sustainability
The Development Narrative proposes several options to incorporate sustainability
principals including drought-tolerant landscaping, LED lighting, and recycling
receptacles. The project also proposes retaining established trees where possible, as
well as the utilization of smart controller drip irrigation.
PUD Compatibility to Zoning Ordinance
All property boundaries adjacent to public streets will include enhanced landscaping
with five-foot wide detached sidewalks. Shade at 75 percent coverage at maturity will
be provided to increase pedestrian comfort and activity. The PUD comparative
Page 624
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
standards table shows that the landscape setback provided is equal to the R-5
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance and require that 50 percent of trees be a
minimum of two-inch caliper, 25 percent be three-inch caliper and 25 percent be four-
inch caliper.
Phasing
The project will be constructed in one phase.
Additional Requirements
The applicant will be required to submit an updated development narrative after City
Council approval reflecting all required updates in the final draft. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 1 a.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
8. 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. In addition, a vision in the master plan is to raise awareness by
leading by example. The proposal includes landscaped pedestrian walkways, open
space areas and greater planting standards than otherwise required by the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding Principles.
The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an accessible, safe,
and connected transportation system to include all modes, such as bicycles,
pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. There are proposed detached sidewalks along 19th
Avenue and pathways throughout the site which provide a safer and more comfortable
pedestrian experience.
10. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan also supports options for both short-and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. The proposal requires bicycle parking spaces be provided on the site.
Bicycle racks shall consist of an inverted-U or other decorative design and installed per
the requirements of Section 1307. H. of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
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
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial, and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The provision of recycling is addressed in the PUD narrative.
Page 625
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
12. 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 contributing to a variety
housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace while using
vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
This proposal will help to meet the goals of the housing plan by increasing the number
of available dwelling units for existing and new residents, while diversifying the types of
housing in the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
13. At the time the staff report was written, staff had received 48 letters of concern.
Concerns include a perceived increase in traffic, building height, character of area
changing, population density increases, loss of commercial spaces in area,
overabundance of multifamily projects in area, infrastructure capacity concerns and
size of proposed buildings. Staff has also received 171 letters of support. Support
comments include a welcomed enhancement to the area, the proposed project will
enhance and maintain a high quality of living in the area, the proposed project will
bring in a built-in customer base to existing commercial uses in the Norterra area and
Happy Valley Road corridor, the project will replace an underutilized and blighted site,
reduction in traffic and the project will enhance aesthetics by providing lush
landscaping and a pedestrian friendly experience.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
14. The Street Transportation Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all
streets within and adjacent to the development be constructed with all mandatory
elements, the developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median along
19th Avenue for the full limits of the project, a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk and 13-
foot-wide landscape area located between the back of curb and
Sidewalk along 19th Avenue. No preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until a
Traffic Impact Study/Statement is reviewed and approved by the City. Further, access
control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and Desert Hollow Drive
alignment. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 1.b., 2, 3, 4 and 5.
15. The City of Phoenix Aviation Department has noted that the site is within the Deer
Valley Municipal Airport traffic pattern airspace, therefore, the developer shall provide
notice to prospective purchasers of the existence and operation characteristics of the
Deer Valley Airport and shall provide documentation that Form 7460-1 from the FAA.
The requirements are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 6 and 7.
16. The Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems with this case
Page 626
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire Code.
17. The Public Transit Department has proposed stipulations requiring that all pedestrian
paths and drive aisles shall be constructed with decorative pavers, stamped, or colored
concrete or other pavement treatments that contrast with adjacent surfaces and be
shaded by 75 percent with vegetative shade at maturity. These are addressed in the
development narrative.
18. The Water Services Department has noted the property has existing water and sewer
mains that can potentially serve the proposed development. However, there is
potential need to up size existing water and sewer infrastructure mains so that any
remodels or new buildings will be able to meet domestic and fire code requirements.
OTHER
19. 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. 8.
20. 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 site is located at the intersection of two arterial streets and in close proximity to an
employment center west of 19th Avenue. The proposed standards in the PUD provide a
transition from more intense development on the west side of 19th Avenue to
undeveloped property to the east of the subject site.
2. The proposed development will provide diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to designated employment centers.
3. The Development Narrative contains standards that exceed ordinance requirements
including enhanced setbacks along three sides of the site as well as enhanced
landscape standards.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date information on
Page 627
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street Section.
An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-foot-wide sidewalk
is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape area is required
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th Avenue,
for the full limits of the project, as approved by the Planning and Development and
Street Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the Desert
Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Page 628
Staff Report: Z-48-21-1
December 7, 2021
Writer
David Simmons
12/07/2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial Map
Community Correspondence (221 pages)
Lumara PUD Development Narrative date stamped November 22, 2021
Page 629
RL
E ZT
RT PA RSONS RD
C O R
EL KD
AR
ONP
N I
U L
TR
D
F IE L
KIN
S-1
MARICOPA
OW DR
RT HO LL
Z-83-06
COUNTY
D ESE
19TH DR
T
VE
HA
19TH LN
C-O/M-O *
19TH AVE
Z-155-05
PUD * S-1
ANX 499
R
TRZ-3-15
L
TE
OT Z-3-A-15
TR
C-2 SP *
17TH AVE
Z-SP-7-16
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 Z-17-09
S-1
ANX 301
ANX 246 Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-140-01
HAPPY VALLEY RD
CP/GCP *
CP/BP
ANX 301 ANX 193
C-2 *
CP/GCP * C-2 and/or
CP/GCP
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-28-00 ANX 222
Z-75-06
CP/BP ANX 193 ANX 301 Z-122-00
Z-91-00 ANX 235
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-122-00
ANX 246
S-1
IMiles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Z-48-21
PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07
DEER VALLEY DR
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD
19TH AVE
I - 17
35TH AVE
51ST AVE 43RD AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Toll Brothers
FROM:
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
8/9/2021 C-O/M-O ( 5.29 a.c.)
Z-48-21 REVISION DATES:
County RU-43 (Pending S-1) ( 8.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
13.48 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 13.48 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O/M-O, County RU-43 (Pending S-1) N/A, 8 N/A, N/A
PUD 470 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 630
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-48-21.mxd
RL
E ZT
RT PA RSONS RD
C O R
EL KD
AR
ONP
N I
U L
TR
D
F IE L
KIN
S-1
MARICOPA
OW DR Z-83-06
RT HO LL COUNTY
D ESE
19TH DR
T
VE
HA
19TH LN
C-O/M-O *
19TH AVE
Z-155-05
PUD * S-1
ANX 499
R
TRZ-3-15
L
TE
OT Z-3-A-15
TR
C-2 SP *
17TH AVE
Z-SP-7-16
C-2 * C-2 *
Z-140-01 Z-17-09
S-1
ANX 301
ANX 246 Z-25-11 Z-167-04
Z-40-01 C-2
Z-140-01
HAPPY VALLEY RD
CP/GCP *
CP/BP
C-2 and/or
ANX 301 ANX 193
C-2 *
CP/GCP * CP/GCP
Z-23-00 ANX 220
Z-75-06 Z-122-00 Z-28-00 ANX 222
CP/BP ANX 193 ANX 301 Z-91-00 ANX 235
ANX 217 Z-95-98 Z-122-00
ANX 246 Maricopa County Assessor's Office
S-1
IMiles
JOMAX RD
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Z-48-21
PINNACLE PEAK RD
0.07 0.035 0 0.07
DEER VALLEY VILLAGE
DEER VALLEY DR
SR 101
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 1 UNION HILLS DR
BELL RD
7TH ST
16TH ST
7TH AVE
GREENWAY RD
19TH AVE
I - 17
35TH AVE
51ST AVE 43RD AVE
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Toll Brothers
FROM:
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
8/9/2021 C-O/M-O ( 5.29 a.c.)
Z-48-21 REVISION DATES:
County RU-43 (Pending S-1) ( 8.19 a.c.)
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
13.48 Acres QS 47-25 O-7 TO: PUD ( 13.48 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
C-O/M-O, County RU-43 (Pending S-1) N/A, 8 N/A, N/A
PUD 470 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 631
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-48-21.mxd
Toll Brothers
Lumara
Zoning Group
Nick Wood, Esq
Attorney
Noel J. Griemsmann, AICP
Sr. Urban Planner
Ryan McCann, AICP
Urban Planner
Taylor N. Moran
162 Letters of Support
Urban Planner
Paola Jaramillo
Assistant Planner Page 632
Page 633
Page 634
Page 635
Page 636
Page 637
Page 638
Page 639
Page 640
Page 641
Page 642
Page 643
Page 644
Page 645
Page 646
Page 647
Page 648
Page 649
Page 650
Page 651
Page 652
Page 653
Page 654
Page 655
Page 656
Page 657
Page 658
Page 659
Page 660
Page 661
Page 662
Page 663
Page 664
Page 665
Page 666
Page 667
Page 668
Page 669
Page 670
Page 671
Page 672
Page 673
Page 674
Page 675
Page 676
Page 677
Page 678
Page 679
Page 680
Page 681
Page 682
Page 683
Page 684
Page 685
Page 686
Page 687
Page 688
Page 689
Page 690
Page 691
Page 692
Page 693
Page 694
Page 695
Page 696
Page 697
Page 698
Page 699
Page 700
Page 701
Page 702
Page 703
Page 704
Page 705
Page 706
Page 707
Page 708
Page 709
Page 710
Page 711
Page 712
Page 713
Page 714
Page 715
Page 716
Page 717
Page 718
Page 719
Page 720
Page 721
Page 722
Page 723
Page 724
Page 725
Page 726
Page 727
Page 728
Page 729
Page 730
Page 731
Page 732
Page 733
Page 734
Page 735
Page 736
Page 737
Page 738
Page 739
Page 740
Page 741
Page 742
Page 743
Page 744
Page 745
Page 746
Page 747
Page 748
Page 749
Page 750
Page 751
Page 752
Page 753
Page 754
Page 755
Page 756
Page 757
Page 758
Page 759
Page 760
Page 761
Page 762
Page 763
Page 764
Page 765
Page 766
Page 767
Page 768
Page 769
Page 770
Page 771
Page 772
Page 773
Page 774
Page 775
Page 776
Page 777
Page 778
Page 779
Page 780
Page 781
Page 782
Page 783
Page 784
Page 785
Page 786
Page 787
Page 788
Page 789
Page 790
Page 791
Page 792
Page 793
Page 794
Page 795
Page 796
David O Simmons
From: Aakash Trivedi
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 3:46 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Support Email for Toll Brothers Happy Valley Road
Hi there,
My name is Aakash and I am the general manager of the Best Western Plus Executive Residency Phoenix North Happy
Valley.
I am giving my support for the toll brothers community project proposed at 19th ave and happy valley rd.
2108 W Whispering Wind Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Zoning Case : # Z-48-21-1 ITEMS 3 AND 4
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
www.bestwesternhappyvalley.com [bestwesternhappyvalley.com]
www.comfortinnfountainhills.com [comfortinnfountainhills.com]
PLEASE NOTE: This message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential
and/or inside information. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the
intended recipient is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system.
Page 797
David O Simmons
From: Stacy B
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 11:33 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Re: Case # Z-48-21-1 items 4 and 5
Smartstop self storage
1740 W. Happy Valley Rd.
Phoenix, AZ. 85085
623-810-9799
Have met with Toll Brothers rep. and support this project. I will try to make the meeting on the 9th.
Thank you,
Stacy Browning SM
Page 798
David O Simmons
From: Grant Helgeson
Sent: Monday, September 20, 2021 1:28 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning Case # Z48-21-1 | Westland Properties 9/20/21
Attachments: Toll at Norterra Aerial.pdf; 210914 Lumara Renderings.pdf
Importance: High
David,
Good afternoon. Hope your Monday is going well. My name is Grant Helgeson and I’m the owner and one of the
professional land brokers here at the Westland Properties Group in Scottsdale. This email is to voice our support for the
Multi-Family rezoning efforts for the 12.23-acre parcel near 19th Ave & Happy Valley area in North Phoenix by Toll
Brothers Multi-Family Division. The multi-family housing project for this area would bring much needed housing options in
the luxury residence arena that are well-designed and resident friendly. Toll Brothers, who is the builder for this project
provides creative designs that are thoughtfully planned and incorporates the surrounding neighborhood needs and
considerations in every project they build.
Grant D. Helgeson
Westland Properties Group
8141 E. Indian Bend Rd, Suite 103
Scottsdale, AZ 85250
tel: 480-443-8570
fax: 480-443-3736
mobile: 602-762-1556
direct: 480-675-5149
email: grant@westland-properties.com
Page 799
Page 800
David O Simmons
From: Kim Cocuzza
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 7:44 PM
To: David O Simmons; jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov
Subject: GPA-DV_2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I would like to speak at the upcoming meetings regarding the zoning change in our R43 neighborhood.
My husband and I are extremely concerned about the changes in our rural lifestyle. The amount of cars that
will start near us each day if these projects are allowed will increase the declining air quality we have to breathe
each day, we bought here 3 years ago to be in a rural neighborhood, high rise, high density projects threaten
this and will cause massive traffic. We can't even get out of our area because of how congested 19th Avenue is.
It is dangerous to get out and make a left on 19th Ave from Yearling road and sometimes you have to sit there
for 10 minutes to get out. Please have the staff read our message and let us speak.
Thank you,
Kimberly Cocuzza To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Realtor
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
480.616.1675 |
KimCocuzzaRealty@gmail.com | aareglobal.com
[aareglobal.com] | aare.tv [aare.tv]
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
Making dreams come true since 2002!
Page 801
David O Simmons
From: Marjorie McCaw
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 11:18 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-3-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1647 W Briles Road for the last 4 years. I am writing in
regards to the Toll Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1.
I would also like to put on record my opposition to the rezoning and Toll Brothers proposed build. I will
be short and succinct as possible.
Firstly, I moved to this area with a certainty about our community. This proposed change in zoning and
subsequent proposed apartment build take that certainty away. There is no longer the minimum 1acre
lot per residence, the traffic, which is already significant, will be overbearing. This rezoning and build is
not consistent with the existing immediate neighborhood. No where in our little island is there a 4 story
complex. We are a small neighborhood of single family homes with a few businesses on Happy Valley
and 19th, of which none are multiple story complexes of this size. This change takes away the certainty
we expected when we moved into this neighborhood.
Secondly, I believe the current zoning is for medical and office buildings. An apartment brings no
needed asset to our community. Medical and commercial offices bring a needed service to our area, an
asset to our community and surrounding area. We support the development that adds a needed asset
to our community and the proposed change in development is not it.
Thirdly, there are many homes in the Happy Valley Island that have livestock and horses. The increase in
traffic and noise pollution will without question have an effect on those animals. The horses will not do
well with this densely populated development. In addition, The residence at the proposed apartment
build will be exposed to the smell of manure from the area and horse flies and undoubtable will be
making complaints to the city.
Fourthly, I moved here with the understanding of the current zoning. I accepted that. Now it is being
proposed to change that against my opposition and others. Do we as a community not have a say in the
rezoning that occurs in our community for something that directly affects us? We are not asking for
change on this zone only to honor the current zoning and honor the certainty we were granted when we
moved into the neighborhood.
Fifthly, there are plenty of other sights in the surrounding area for apparent complexes to be built to
support the housing needs. I don’t see a justification for this build on this particular site when other
areas are available to support an apparent complex. To support this build is to ignore our wishes to
preserve the community in which we live in. The current zoning does not support the Toll Bothers
proposed build and the zoning should remain as is for development. That has clearly been the voice of
the immediate neighborhood.
Sixthly and extremely important, this will WITHOUT QUESTION lower our property values.
Page 802
I sincerely hope that the voices of our community are heard and respected. We love our neighborhood
and want to preserve it and keep the current zoning. The change in zoning and apartment complex is
not way consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Please add my comments to the meeting. I will be at the meeting on December 9th.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Marjorie McCaw
Page 803
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 7:09 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov; Mayor Gallego
Subject: Concerning GPA-DV-2-21-1 Z-48-21-1 &. Z-2021051
Hello,
My name is James Whatley and I’m writing to have my statements put on file and to register to speak at the upcoming
meetings this Thursday for both projects involving the area north of Happy Valley road along 19th Ave all the way to
Parsons rd.
I am aresident and relative of one of the first homes built in this county island. These new planned apartment and
“bungalow” housing projects do not fit in with the original character of our neighborhood.
The residents of this county island including myself have gotten together to fight these new builds and we all are in
agreement that our Zoned R-43 properties need to remain so!
The land connecting to Parsons road is zoned R-43 ( 1 house per acre) and should remain that way. The builder is trying
to build apartments conveniently renamed as “bungalows” . We are only “ok” with one house per acre! This county
island is relatively small and the residents chose to live here because we all enjoy our privacy and our horses and other
large stock animals. We are all connected by private and quiet roads. The families that live here, live off of water
supplied by wells and we all have beautiful homes. We all enjoy our space and the peace and quiet that was
guaranteed to us when we purchased the Character of this area.
The parcel just north of Happy Valley is zoned Commercial Business. Toll Brothers wants to rezone this and build an
original 470 unit apartment complex there. They have accumulated more land so they will want to build even more
units. We are fine with businesses moving in, this area needs more businesses, not more apartments! This area is not
set up nor can it handle the type of development that is trying to move in this area.
These builders are targeting our area thinking they can come in and change the character and life style of this area for
their profit. They can easily go somewhere else in the “city” and obtain land that is already zoned for there needs.
Currently, there are multiple other apartments being built around us. There are more than 5 complexes being built
within a mile radius of our county island. The growth in this area is beyond exponential at this time and this area is not
prepared. All of the main feeder roads around us are 2 lane roads, except for Happy Valley road. There is already a huge
influx of vehicle traffic and and traffic accidents that are occurring everyday, in an area not meant to handle such
growth. Not to mention the excessive noise, light and air pollution that we are experiencing from the already over
burdened surrounding communities. The next thing to get polluted is our ground water that all of us county islanders
rely on to keep our families and our animals alive and healthy.
Please, take my words into consideration during these and all future meetings concerning this area and share these
statements with your colleagues and meeting goers.
Thank you all for your time and understanding in this matter.
Sincerely,
James Whatley
Page 804
Sent from my iPhone
Page 805
David O Simmons
From: Alison McKee
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 1:59 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1, Z-48-21-1
Attachments: Phoenix GPA-DV-2-21-1 Z-48-21-1.pdf
Mr. Simmons,
Please see the attached letter referencing GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1. My husband and I are opposed to the rezoning
and annexation of the property in question located near Happy Valley Rd. & 19th Ave. We are 10 year residents of the
unincorporated, rural community bordering the vacant land that Toll Brothers wishes to develop with a "luxury"
apartment complex. We have created a quaint homestead where we raise livestock and small stock to provide some of
the food our family consumes. We also have horses, and a small herd of donkeys that are our wonderful companions. It
is our wish that the village planning committee keep the zoning as is, as a commercial development on this land will help
to better protect our rural way of life. We are asking for a no vote on the above referenced cases being decided in
tomorrow's meeting. I would appreciate you sharing my letter with the committee and hope to be able to speak at the
meeting tomorrow night.
Kind regards,
Alison McKee
1219 W Parsons Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602-702-3676
Page 806
David O Simmons
From: Laura B
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:48 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Mr Simmons,
I am Laura Bates I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1744 w parsons road. I would like to speak at the Toll
Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-complex.
We bought this property because we were enchanted with the characteristics of the neighborhood. We could
have animals and had a fresh water well! Country living with all the convenience of a city .
We did our homework when purchasing our home and found out the lots across from us were zoned 1 home per acre
like our home. The lot behind (the now KT) was zoned for medical office. This was a buffer zone from the commercial
lot on happy valley.
We did this homework to make certain we would not have an eyesore out our front windows.
The residents have been talking about creating a gated community to eliminate traffic we already see.
At one of the meetings I brought up the traffic and traffic flow. I felt very dismissed. The lady kept saying they did a
traffic study and it was fine. She insisted no one would take a right turn.
We have asked for details of the study and when it was done. No one has seen this yet.
We live there and are saying there is already traffic issues. At times it is difficult for us to safely make a left hand
turn. WE take a right to avoid traffic. It is insulting to have someone dismiss our knowledge. We live with th e increased
traffic.
This will significantly reduce our property value or at least potential buyers. I know I would not buy it had I known I
would have a 3 or 4 story building with hundreds of people coming and going.
There is plenty of more suitable land for this development. Land that home owners know what they will getting, when
they buy.
I hope you can understand our concerns.
Regards,
Laura Bates
Page 807
David O Simmons
From: dave beaver
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:42 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case 2021 051
Dear Mr. Simmons,
My name is David Beaver, residing at 1732 W. Yearling Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85085. This is regarding case
number Z 2021 051. I am opposed to the rezoning and the Toll Brothers project, cases GPA-DV-2-21-1
and Z-48-21-1.
My family have been residents here for 10 years. We enjoy this community. It’s a perfect place to
retire because of the convenience of our daily necessities, such as shopping, pharmacies, eateries, etc.
There are plenty of other properties off Happy Valley where they can develop multi-family zoning and
build apartment complexes. I am not in favor of a re-zoning nor the Toll Brothers multi-family apartment
complex. Please respect our desire to keep this Happy Valley island a single-family community.
Sincerely,
David Beaver
Page 808
David O Simmons
From: Brian Bates
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 PM
To: jose.castaneda@maricopa.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Zoning on parsons rd
I purchased my property at 1744 w pardons rd with the knowledge that the vacant land south of my property was zoned
for homes on 1 acre parcels, I believe r94 or something like that. There was also supposed to be medical offices right
behind the business on happy valley. Changing the zoning now is taking away my certainty of the planning already
realized. We have a lot horse properties and it would be sad to see the city or county destroy that by letting some rich
developer come in and change our livelihoods. Leave the planning the way it was set to be and find more suitable
property to build your high density housing. Thank you and I would also like to speak to you personally. 6233859296
Brian Bates
Sent from my iPhone
Page 809
December 7, 2021
RE: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
Mayor Kate Gallego mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov
District 1: Councilmember Ann O’Brien council.district.1@phoenix.gov.
District 8: Vice Mayor Carlos Garcia council.district.8@phoenix.gov
To All It May Concern;
While we were happy with the staff recognition of the character and land use pattern
of our neighborhood,
[ RE: October 8, 2021 - Proposed: (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) (Residential
15+ du/acre) (13.48 acres)
General Comments: 3. Staff has concerns with proposed height, density and character
of the use proposed. This proposal is out of character with the surrounding area, as
discussed in the pre application meeting. 19th Ave is the dividing line between higher
density and lower density to the east.
4. Not consistent or compatible with character and land use pattern in surrounding
area which is predominantly large lot single-family residential. Lower height, density
and incorporate stepbacks from large lot residential.
5. Staff is not supportive of density proposed.
6. 55 feet is simply too high for this proposal at this location. Staff is not supportive of
the proposed height.
9. Development is close to large lot County residential. Adjust height to be more
consistent with projects in close proximity to large lot single-family residential. 55
foot maximum at highest point furthest from single-family residential is simply too
high.
Page 810
LIST OF USES: Staff recommend going with Residential 15+ on entire site OR lower
density residential.
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: 1. Page 8 – Incorporate stepbacks in table (add a
stepback exhibit as noted above); Add the development standards table. Still too high
adjacent to large lot residential. Staff is recommending 2 stories from large lot
residential, then up to a maximum of three stores farthest from large lot residential. 3.
Page 8 - The max. units for the PUD is 470 units, which is much too high for the
character of this area. Reduce density significantly as a result of the reduction in
acceptable height for area. 8 – landscape setbacks should match the building setbacks
- why the deviation? Increase landscape setbacks.
Tallest portion of the project should be the absolute farthest from single-family
residential. Proposed height is not supported by staff. Building too tall for character of
area. Staff is not supportive.]
We are disappointed that it did not go further to defend our long term homes and the
overall rural Character of the neighborhood. This “County Island is not filled with all
million dollar homes, We have a very diverse neighborhood, but most strive and are
here for the same reasons. Many have animals that we can only have in a setting such
as ours and many of us have raised Kids to Adulthood in the same family home their
entire lives. There are a multitude of aspects to object to and there are
lifetimes/styles/dreams/realities and more at stake, so I respectfully ask that you
read this slowly, and in its entirety and remember that your decisions really will only
have a lasting effect on those of us who RESIDE within the boundaries of this County
Island that we are trying to defend. Others will never know if they didn't get to live in
an apartment that was never built. (but they might someday get to be a homeowner
with horse privileges and more) That btw being one of the multiple aspects to our
objections. One of the greatest things about the Phoenix metropolitan area is the
diversity of options when it comes to housing. Within the "city" aspects there are
many areas where you can feel/be "rural" and very few big Cities can boast that. We
feel based upon the many promises and analysis over the years that we witnessed and
relied upon while we built our lives, that you have a higher obligation to stand up for
us.
At What Point in time was it decided that Investors get priority over Owner Occupied
Residential entities no matter what.
Page 811
I wish I could be short and to the point, but thats very difficult to do when there are so
many points. I truly am not trying to filibuster your time, but its hard to condense so
many grievances.
We have dealt with and been surrounded by growth for many years now, but this
proposed development will not surround us, they will invade, envelop, and
suffocate us and our animals . They are stepping directly within and chipping away at
our borders which with Certainty would change the overall character of our
Community. It is sad that you would allow that to happen to your constituents. How
long before you start getting complaints because of horses, donkeys bees, etc. But the
density is the biggest issue for us all - why not a small gated community with 1/3 acre
(even better 1/2 acre) homes that would temper and flow very readily into our
community. We are a small landlocked county island with numerous residents that
desire to leave it that way. What right does anyone have to buy Land zoned R-43, and
identified multiple times by government entities as an area that would be retained as
rural, and destroy it's character simply for the fact that it was cheap (compared to
already zoned and appropriate parcels). Over the years we believed what we were
told from the Deer Valley Planning Commission (who we were lead to believe carried
the most weight), multiple times, this area was meant to remain low density , and we
took them at their word.
So to be clear, we have no objections nor issues with people or companies buying
vacant land on the off chance that at some point in their investment lifetime this will
pay off for them. And in some instances that might make sense. Within the boundaries
of our land locked County (partially Phoenix) Island however, this does
not. Therefore WE OBJECT. Parcel sizes to build homes in our area have always (for
decades) required 1.00 acre (or more) of land for (1) single family home. That is how
it should remain as the people who did buy and build in our area relied upon those
decade old reassurances. Many of us invested much more than money in building
homes and helping to maintain this area to retain core amenities that most people
were seeking when they chose to build their lives here.
We personally bought our land in the 1970's and built our homes in the late 1980's,
we did not ask for the "progress" that came to this area in the form of businesses,
traffic etc. but we also weren't naive enough to think that we could stop many aspects
of it. But all indications had still been (until most recently) that most business entities
would be minor and only allowed on the South side of HV and High Density
Residential wasn't even on the radar. It was not until quite recently that residential
was even a part of that mix and now we are being bombarded ( RE: Maricopa County
Case # Z2021051 Bungalows) at a very rushed and increased pace. Development Reps
have been canvasing our neighborhood, misrepresenting the desires of the majority
and doing their best to strong arm and coerce support for something that has NO
BENEFITS to the neighborhood, only to the developers themselves.
Page 812
Most all agree we would actually prefer the commercial zoning in place for this parcel
allowing for medical and small businesses from which the area could benefit from
local business entities and Dr's, with minimal traffic and increased crime risks. These
"Developers" are making a conscious choice to purchase land that is not zoned
compatible with their original intent, obviously with the belief that they can buy their
way in, which was obviously cheaper than buying land already zoned for their intent
purposes, as that land is currently in abundance throughout this area. Instead they
are choosing to encroach upon us, hoping to plow and bully their way around to get
their way. We implore you please do not allow this to happen.
We were lulled into believing that the land-locked area we occupied would be mainly
immune to density changes for several reasons. First and foremost, I'll site the DV
Planning Committee again (which we attended many a meeting over the years ) and
their written assurances of 19th Ave being the dividing line for maintaining the
existing low density profile to the East of 19th Ave, along with the County zoning plan
of R-43 and by 2 other facts. that I believe should also still play very big into this
decision by you; 19th Ave Northbound from Happy Valley Rd (HV) is essentially a
road to nowhere, as is HV Eastbound from 19th Ave. These 2 facts also led us to
believe that there was never an intention on increasing density onto roads that can
not handle the traffic increase that comes with it, even with modifications.
So please consider these overall traffic aspects carefully;
Happy Valley Rd. on our South Boundary, is a road to and from nowhere, and I can't
imagine that ever changing (ooops there I ago again) due to the topography east of 7th
St. and the fact that homes are built directly in the path where HV comes out on Cave
Creek Rd.
Our West Boundary, 19th Ave northbound is also a road to nowhere. At Jomax it
ceases to exist and all traffic heading west is mainly bound for the extensive SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENTS that are in the other basically landlocked areas
of Jomax, Norterra Parkway and North Valley Parkway. 19th Ave turns into North
Valley Parkway which within less than 2 miles also has Norterra Parkway meld into it
which then in approximately one mile ceases to exist completely as a road that can
handle "traffic", so encouraging anyone along that route is ludicrous as I'm sure most
residents in that area will agree. Very few businesses or high density developments
exist in that area and yet the traffic is already extensive due to the physical size of the
area and the lack of direct access from the east, west and North sides of this area.
USAA's development was difficult enough for our R-43 zoning to have to accept but at
least this was tempered by mainly single family homes with easy access to the main
Roads such as Happy Valley (which holds mainly businesses) , Jomax or Norterra
Parkway, again mainly businesses until Jomax. The small stretch of 19th Avenue
from Happy Valley to Jomax is already way overloaded with traffic during peak hours,
and that wouldn't change even if they expanded that section to 4 lanes. On weekday
mornings, southbound traffic coming from North Valley onto 19th is ridiculous and
Page 813
has a high amount of speeders and red light runners. This is already soon to change as
Union Park will soon be building its Northside which will greatly increase that 19th
Avenue traffic once again. The only saving grace we (and you) currently have is the
fact that the East side of 19th Ave between HV & Jomax are all single family residences
on minimum 1.00 acre parcels. There are NO businesses and NO high density
residences. If you change that demographic, you will create an even more dangerous
traffic pattern than what already exists.
The two developments are requesting extreme changes to the current density
requirements, and neither one will have ANY access in or out other than that onto
19th Avenue and (as proposed in this development) couple that with the traffic from
Union Parks access to 19th Ave. In the mornings it is already impossible to turn onto
19th Ave south.
Union Park has direct access to Happy Valley Road, that helps with the traffic in and
out of the Southern part of that development but as they also have access to 19th
Avenue, traffic is generated at Parsons Rd. The same will happen with their Northern
part of development now underway, they will have access to Jomax (which will create
another traffic nightmare for those neighborhoods to the North, but again will also
have access to 19th Avenue which will generate more traffic at Briles Rd.. Adding any
more density developments that require access from 19th Ave between Happy Valley
and Jomax is insane. There has been reliance for many years within our
neighborhood of large (minimum 1.00 acre parcels) and the Deer Valley planning
commission has always identified our little triangular County Island to retain that low
density zoning as anything else would be a major disruption on many many levels.
To encourage any more traffic onto this pathway (19th between HV and Jomax ) to go
North or south, or onto HV (east of 19th) is disruptive to ALL of the residents located
within the boundaries of Happy Valley, 7th St., Norterra Parkway, up to Dixleta on the
North side, not just our Island.
Essentially we feel it is critical to reject ANY High Density development (or any
Commercial development that would attract a high traffic volume) on the East side of
19th Avenue between Happy Valley and Jomax - If we had to accept some reduction in
the R-43 footprint again the preference would be a minimum .5 acre (.33 if pushed)
single home footprint to blend in with the existing 1.00 acre parcels. There is still
plenty of money for developers to make from that.
ADDED to the above nightmares, If you Approve this request, there are several other
things I can state with certainty that I hope you consider carefully, as we also have
vested interests in this area;
The Home we just finally paid off after 33 years will immediately DECREASE in
value and likely continue that path.
Page 814
The lifestyle that we worked so hard to achieve and maintain and enjoy will be now
LOST just as we are starting our retirement years. The homes our children were
raised in and hoped they might raise their children in will be no more.
The livestock/animals/fowl we have will likely be in more danger now from humans
than any other natural predators we currently have. These residents will be right up
against properties with horses/livestock, flocks, hives etc, and who knows how
anyone offended by the environment that comes with that will react.
You didn't do this to Sunburst Farms, You didn't do this to Western Meadows, This
wasn’t done by Peoria to Longhorn Ranch or Thunderbird North, please DO NOT do
this to our small landlocked County Island. Allowing ANY developments within our
borders with a density greater than our current zoning is a death sentence to the
lifestyles we have carefully cultivated and sacrificed for over the years.
Our small land-locked County Island has always allowed for us to maintain that rural
lifestyle that has been here since we bult in 1988, we've watched the Walmarts come,
the Circle K's and even a large residential development, yet none of those even came
close to threatening our rural lifestyle the way these two proposed developments are
now doing
Respectfully and with Hope that for once the little guy can win on principal alone, not
through drained bank accounts as obviously we don't have the $$'s to fight these
battles, just simple faith that sometimes the bigger picture can win out.
If you read this to the end (and I apologize for my repetitiveness ) I greatly appreciate
your time and consideration, I know I’m long winded (ask my daughter about my
texts!!) when I’m passionate about an Issue and as this one really determines our
whole future and I wanted you to take a great many things into account when making
this decision.
I am unable to attend this current meeting as I will be working so I’d appreciate this
being entered into the record if you would.
Laurel & Richard Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 815
Page 816
David O Simmons
From: rusty hill
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 3:02 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Meeting Delay on Purposed Zoning Change
Sir, My name is Richard J. Hill Jr.
and I go by Rusty. My address is 1808 West Parsons Rd. This is concerning the proposed zoning change from R-43 (1
house per acre) to R-2 (Apt. buildings), application #'s Z-48-21-1 and Z2021051, I am asking for a delay on the vote of
the committee. I just received the updated time on the Z2021051 sign,Monday 12/6/21. Up until this time there was no
time listed. I checked regularly. I have not received any notices by mail from anyone except the contractors
lawyers. Which are conflicting with the Notice sign. I am having problems with my computer and have to go to
neighborhood meetings to catch the contractors fabricated fiasco about "luxury shoe boxes". I am in the process of
Writing a detailed letter that I will send to you and everyone involved.. Once
again... This is a request for a delay on the vote at the Deer Valley Planning committee meeting at 6PM, 12/9/21. I
found out about this meeting, monday at our neighborhood meeting and need more time before the vote. Please
consider my request
in the name of fair play. Just one more note in case my request is denied........ The proposed entrance and exit to the
apt's on 2021051 is directly in front of my house. NOT!!!
To help protect y our priv acy ,
Micro so ft Office prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this
picture from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avast.com [avast.com]
[avast.com]
Page 817
David O Simmons
From: Travis Burke
Sent: Wednesday, December 8, 2021 8:03 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Importance: High
Dear Mr. Simmons
I live at 26215 N. 17th drive Phoeniz az 85085 in the county island.
My wife and I specially sought out this area because of its unique zoning of 1 acre parcels per home. This ensures that
the area will remain large estates and not be overrun with town homes or apartments or even cookie cutter new builds
you see all over the valley.
We are totally against the rezoning of the county land to allow these types of apartments.
Thank you for your consideration on this matter
Travis Burke - Owner
NurtureScape Landscape Company
Cell- 602.621.3355
Nurturescapeaz.com
ROC 331593
Page 818
David O Simmons
From: Valerie King
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 5:38 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Cases
Dear Mr. Simmons
My name is Valerie King, and my address is: 1732 W. Yearling Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85085. I am writing you regarding case
number Z 2021 051. I am strongly opposed to the rezoning and the Toll Brothers proposed development, (cases GPA-
DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1).
We searched 3-1/2 years for our ideal location for our new home. The major perks that stood out for us in moving to
this community is the single family neighborhood and country style living. After 10 years of living here, it breaks my
heart to think that there could be a rezoning to make my beautiful neighborhood a multi-family living space. This is
where I chose to retire and I don’t want to be forced to move anywhere else.
There are plenty of other properties for the Toll Brothers to build on outside of our little Happy Valley island. Please let
our voices be heard so we can keep our neighborhood to a single-family not multi-family zoning. Respectfully, don’t let
the rich developers squash the little folks that live in this single family community.
Smiles,
Valerie King
Page 819
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns Office
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 7:22 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z48-21-1 and gpa-dv2-21-1
Dear City of Phoenix, Deer Valley Council Members, Maricopa County Council Members, Mayor Gallego,
My name is Julie Burns. I live one house and block from the numerous high density planned development’s in our area.
We have met with Toll Brothers attorney’s several times. We dispute the traffic report. They want to characterize the
residence as “not for development,” “not for building,” “not for infrastructure,” “not wanting change,” “Not knowing
how good this would be for our neighborhood,” “not knowing what’s good for the community, City of Phoenix or State
of Arizona.” Let me tell you who we are i n your community, City of Phoenix, and State of Arizona. We are your business
owners, entrepreneurs and hard workers that depend on the construction economy.
WHO WE ARE:
We are your Registered Nurses, BSN’s who take care of our community, your Anesthetist who makes sure you wake up
during a procedure, your landscape construction company to give great outdoor spaces owner, your realtor to sell you
homes, your granite slab installation company owner, your drinking water purifier owner, your plumber owner, your
electrician owner, TWO well drill owners, TWO pest control company owners, TWO Turf Paradise Race track owners and
trainers, your FedEX driver, your tree trimer owner, your landscape maintenance owner, your Post Master who delivers
your mail, your custom car restoration owner/Professional Race Care Driver, your Professional World Wakesurfer, your
cheerleader coach, your school teacher, your retired Veteran’s who bought the land when first offered by the
government, your Veteran’s widower, your marshal arts studio owner, assisted living home owner, your high level
corporate professional for a publicly traded company, ect
So, if you think we can’t do change, let me tell you what we have been through and changes made to make it through
the Great Recession, COVID, and now inflation. We want and need change, development, growth and population for our
lively hoods. However, the above neighbors are united in preserving the character of our neighborhood.
KEEP CURRENT ZONING
First and foremost, I want to say I’m sorry to our four neighbors (zoned R-43) that are under escrow with the developer.
I do not intend to do them harm by opposing the high density development. However, maybe I’m doing you a favor. By
now, you see that you can not buy a home similar to our area for any price. Not even one million dollars… I’m sorry to
go against your wishes. However, I will not throw in the towel for our lifestyle and character of our neighborhood.
Now, to express to DV staff my desire to deep the current zoning Medical offices and General Comerance (5 ac) and R- 43
(10 ac) just how it is. I don’t think the proposed R-43 should be changed to any type of commercial zoning. With the
current zoning, this will allow the proper buffer that is needed for our county island neighborhood. The current zoning
will allow a proper buffer and keep our character of the rural neighborhood.
Please, consider all the comment’s you received from the residences of our little county island. This high density
development is not wanted in our area and will not fit the character of the area. We just want the existing commercial
buffer and no more. We love the rural character of our neighborhood. We hope you too, can look past what the
developers want to turn our neighborhood into. We love our lifestyle. Please DON’T recommend this high density
development in are area. KEEP the CURRENT ZONING.
Page 820
NOTES of Letter- Meeting City of Phoenix Annexation My name is Julie Burns. I have three separate one acre lots on
Yearling. The first acre is one lot in from the subject property on the North side of Yearling. The second acre is three lots
from the subject property on the North side of Yearling. The third acre is two lots down from the subject proper on the
South side of Yearling. One house is currently being built by my Son contracted with NextGen builders, I live in the other
house and the third acre has a beautiful shed, I’m using for my horse barn. So, I have a lot invested in this immediate
area.
When the state land sold to USSA, they worked with the neighborhood to get our input in the development. We agreed
to have a walk around the whole development for horses/runners, bikers etc. We worked on agreeing to have
commercial focused on Happy Valley/Jomax and agreed to have houses on 19th Ave. Guess what…? USSA and their
developers didn’t change anything along the way. USSA was respectful for our needs to keep our neighborhood
character. And I thank them tremendously, because, I now see how easy it is for changes to happen along the way out of
sight of the neighbor’s.
So this round of developers wants high density development in our neighborhood and has no concern for the character
of our area. We have new homeowners and original homeowners with residences in this area that want to keep things
rural. Not changing the rural feel is the main goal our neighborhood want and need for development.
The developers have ignored, lied and disregard our desires during their community outreach.
This little annexation to the City of Phx is just a “baby step” to use a quote from Dave Ramsey. It will lead to more high
density development with this developer that doesn’t listen to the neighborhood and a lack of respect for our lifestyle.
All services that is desired can be done within Maricopa County. A water well can supply up to 4 homes. We have fire
service, sheriff’s and anything else a homeowner would want.
I’m opposed to the City of Phoenix encroaching on our rural living. And I’m opposed to the developers not listening to
the homeowners that have lived here for 50 years to only 6 months. We should have a voice…? KEEP ZONING AS IS.
Our main goal is to keep commercial on Happy Valley. One acre lot in. It is slowly encroaching more into our
neighborhood by the developers silencing our neighbor’s by making offers and being in escrow with the homeowners.
Low balling them with offers that cannot replace their current lifestyle.
Please listen to our desires. We know this is a baby step for this developer. We DO NOT WANT City of Phx in a random
spot in our R-43 neighborhood and We Do Not Want high density zoning R2 or other equivalent zoning.
--
Julie Burns,
Sincerely,
Julie Burns
Hawkeye Landscaping, Inc
623-582-1122
Page 821
David O Simmons
From: Stephen Murphy
Sent: Wednesday, December 1, 2021 9:38 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
Mr Simmons,
I am a resident in the Happy Valley Island at 1647 W Briles Road for the last 4 years. I would like to speak at the
Toll Brothers zoning vote meeting case GPA-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1.
I would also like to put on record my opposition to the rezoning and Toll Brothers proposed build. I will be short
and succinct as possible.
First I believe this build is not consistent with the existing immediate neighborhood. No where in our little island
is there a 4 story complex. We are a small neighborhood of single family homes with a few businesses on Happy Valley
and 19th, of which none are multiple story complexes of this size.
Secondly, I believe the current zoning is for medical building. I mention this because medical offices bring a
needed service to our area, an asset to our community. This would benefit our community and not just the Happy
Valley Island. I know that there will eventually be development on those grounds, I don’t see any benefit to us with a
large apartment complex nor is it consistent with any building in that area in regards to size and design. Development
will come, this is not the development that I support for our neighborhood nor do the majority of my neighbors.
Thirdly, I moved here with the understanding of the current zoning. I accepted that. Now it is being proposed
to change that against my opposition and others. Do we as, a community, not have a say in the changes that occur in
our community for something that directly affects us? We are not asking for change on this zone only to honor the
current zoning.
Fourthly, there are plenty of other sights in the surrounding area for apparent complexes to be built to support
the housing needs. I don’t see a justification for this build on this particular site when other areas are available to
support an apparent complex. To support this build is to ignore our wishes to preserve the community in which we live
in. The current zoning does not support the Toll Bothers proposed build and the zoning should remain as is for
development. That has clearly been the voice of the immediate neighborhood.
I sincerely hope that the voices of our community are heard and respected. We love our neighborhood and
want to preserve it and keep with the current zoning. The apartment complex is in now way consistent with the
neighborhood.
Please add my comments to the meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Stephen B Murphy
(219) 308-8516
Page 822
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Wednesday, November 3, 2021 5:48 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Melissa Crawford; James Whatley
Subject: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1 and City of PHX Formal Meeting September 15th Article
26 (annexation Yearling & 19th Ave)
Dear City of Phoenix, Deer Valley Council Members, Maricopa County Council Members, Mayor Gallego,
My name is Julie Burns. I live one house and block from the numerous high density planned development’s in our area.
We have met with Toll Brothers attorney’s several times. We dispute the
traffic report. They want to characterize the residence as “not for
development,” “not for building,” “not for infrastructure,” “not wanting
change,” “Not knowing how good this would be for our neighborhood,” “not
knowing what’s good for the community, City of Phoenix or State of
Arizona.” Let me tell you who we are in your community, City of
Phoenix, and State of Arizona. We are your business owners,
entrepreneurs and hard workers that depend on the construction economy.
WHO WE ARE:
We are your Registered Nurses, BSN’s who take care of our community,
your Anesthetist who makes sure you wake up during a procedure, your
landscape construction company to give great outdoor spaces owner, your
realtor to sell you homes, your granite slab installation company owner,
your drinking water purifier owner, your plumber owner, your electrician
owner, TWO well drill owners, TWO pest control company owners, TWO Turf
Paradise Race track owners and trainers, your FedEX driver, your tree
trimer owner, your landscape maintenance owner, your Post Master who
delivers your mail, your custom car restoration owner/Professional Race
Care Driver, your Professional World Wakesurfer, your cheerleader coach,
your school teacher, your retired Veteran’s who bought the land when
first offered by the government, your Veteran’s widower, your marshal
arts studio owner, assisted living home owner, your high level corporate
professional for a publicly traded company, ect
So, if you think we can’t do change, let me tell you what we have been
through and changes made to make it through the Great Recession, COVID,
and now inflation. We want and need change, development, growth and
population for our lively hoods. However, the above neighbors are
united in preserving the character of our neighborhood.
KEEP CURRENT ZONING
First and foremost, I want to say I’m sorry to our four neighbors (zoned
R-43) that are under escrow with the developer. I do not intend to do
them harm by opposing the high density development. However, maybe I’m
Page 823
doing you a favor. By now, you see that you can not buy a home similar
to our area for any price. Not even one million dollars… I’m sorry to
go against your wishes. However, I will not throw in the towel for our
lifestyle and character of our neighborhood.
Now, to express to DV staff my desire to deep the current zoning Medical
offices and General Comerance (5 ac) and R-43 (10 ac) just how it is. I
don’t think the proposed R-43 should be changed to any type of
commercial zoning. With the current zoning, this will allow the proper
buffer that is needed for our county island neighborhood. The current
zoning will allow a proper buffer and keep our character of the rural
neighborhood.
Please, consider all the comment’s you received from the residences of
our little county island. This high density development is not wanted
in our area and will not fit the character of the area. We just want the
existing commercial buffer and no more. We love the rural character of
our neighborhood. We hope you too, can look past what the developers
want to turn our neighborhood into. We love our lifestyle. Please DON’T
recommend this high density development in are area. KEEP the CURRENT
ZONING.
NOTES of Letter- Meeting City of Phoenix Annexation
My name is Julie Burns. I have three separate one acre lots on Yearling.
The first acre is one lot in from the subject property on the North side
of Yearling. The second acre is three lots from the subject property on
the North side of Yearling. The third acre is two lots down from the
subject proper on the South side of Yearling. One house is currently
being built by my Son contracted with NextGen builders, I live in the
other house and the third acre has a beautiful shed, I’m using for my
horse barn. So, I have a lot invested in this immediate area.
When the state land sold to USSA, they worked with the neighborhood to
get our input in the development. We agreed to have a walk around the
whole development for horses/runners, bikers etc. We worked on agreeing
to have commercial focused on Happy Valley/Jomax and agreed to have
houses on 19th Ave. Guess what…? USSA and their developers didn’t change
anything along the way. USSA was respectful for our needs to keep our
neighborhood character. And I thank them tremendously, because, I now
see how easy it is for changes to happen along the way out of sight of
the neighbor’s.
So this round of developers wants high density development in our
neighborhood and has no concern for the character of our area. We have
new homeowners and original homeowners with residences in this area that
want to keep things rural. Not changing the rural feel is the main goal
our neighborhood want and need for development.
The developers have ignored, lied and disregard our desires during their
community outreach.
This little annexation to the City of Phx is just a “baby step” to use a
Page 824
quote from Dave Ramsey. It will lead to more high density development
with this developer that doesn’t listen to the neighborhood and a lack
of respect for our lifestyle.
All services that is desired can be done within Maricopa County. A water
well can supply up to 4 homes. We have fire service, sheriff’s and
anything else a homeowner would want.
I’m opposed to the City of Phoenix encroaching on our rural living. And
I’m opposed to the developers not listening to the homeowners that have
lived here for 50 years to only 6 months. We should have a voice…? KEEP
ZONING AS IS.
Our main goal is to keep commercial on Happy Valley. One acre lot in. It
is slowly encroaching more into our neighborhood by the developers
silencing our neighbor’s by making offers and being in escrow with the
homeowners. Low balling them with offers that cannot replace their
current lifestyle.
Please listen to our desires. We know this is a baby step for this
developer. We DO NOT WANT City of Phx in a random spot in our R-43
neighborhood and We Do Not Want high density zoning.
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
Yearling
Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 825
David O Simmons
From: barbara zimpleman
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 12:18 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: apartments and dense housing.
We moved out here for the quiet, neighborhood feel that was here. Now the apartments in fornt of a high school, the so
called luxury tiny leased homes, and other densely packed housing being built around the pinnacle Peak to Happy Valley
areas on both sides of I 17 are making it a nightmare. The roads are not sufficient for the numbers. The crime and
number of just plain scary people moving in is ridiculous. The statements that this area was always supposed to be built
up to the level you are working on is ridiculous. My husband and I hate it. You are ruining our neighborhoods, the places
we like to go, and making this area feel like the beginnings of a slum. STOP IT.
Page 826
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Monday, September 6, 2021 8:26 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: comments case 48 hour notice
Hi,
I would like to set up a time to speak. Application GPA DV 2-21-1
#Z-48-21-1
Also, add my comments I'm opposed to such a high density building in a rural area. Does not fit the rural neighbor hood.
No high density building within a 10 mile radius. Does NOT fit!
Sincerely,
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 827
David O Simmons
From: julie burns
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2021 6:32 AM
To: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; David O Simmons
Subject: Meeting ID 915 4472 3195 Norterra Bungalow
Good Morning,
I wanted to express my concerns related to the high density zoning change for the Maricopa County Island. We currently
are zoned R-43. Meaning one house per acre. Any change to the county island would be an extreme upset to the rural
living that has become homes to many families.
This long term land owner has not cared about the communities concerns. They have been informed several times by
multiple land owners that homeless and trash has accumulated on the property. Nothing has been done.
Looking back on the property over 10 years, there have been multiple violations related to trash on site. He has agreed
to clean up and fence.... No performance on the developers part...STILL homeless and trash and dumping onsite.
Stay Safe,
Julie Burns
1717 W Yearling Road
602-695-3903
Page 828
David O Simmons
From: Connorburnsurf
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:13 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Add comment
Case # Z - 48-21-1
And case #GPA-DV-2-21-1
I live at 1710 W. Yearling Rd.. Phoenix AZ 85085. I am against high density development behind Circle K. Medical
buildings are OK. However absolutely no high density residences. It will ruin the character and charm of our county
island.
Sincerely,
Connor Burns
Page 829
David O Simmons
From: Courtney Hamby
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:30 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
Hello,
We wanted to make sure and get this email over to you, we are definitely apposed to the building that will be taking
place. We are very concerned about it bringing low income housing and what type of people that may bring into our
neighborhoods. We are also concerned with the congestion this is going to cause to our county island, it would be so
nice to see our county island stay as customized home building.
Our address is 1707 W. Yearling Rd. Phoenix, 85085
Thank you,
Courtney Hamby
Wayne Butler
Page 830
David O Simmons
From: Diane Habener
Sent: Wednesday, August 4, 2021 5:16 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Case No. Z-48-21
Dear Mr. Simmons,
I live at 25312 N. 16th Avenue. My 2 1/2 acre property is about 1000’ east of the proposed development. As a licensed
Real Estate Agent and Broker working in both Arizona and California for over 40 years, I am familiar with Real Estate
developments. And when I purchased my property in 2000, USAA had just purchased the section of land near me, so I
always knew that there would be development around me. What I, and most of my existing neighbors, hope to do is
retain our little pocket of rural/horsey feeling County Island. I believe that the current zoning that the City already has in
place of Commercial Office and Residential (3.5-5 dwellings per acre will provide the best buffer from 19th Avenue to
the interior properties.
The General Plan Amendment and Rezoning request might be MINOR per the City’s definition but 470 units crammed
onto 12.46 acres in 3 and 4 story buildings is MAJOR and is completely incongruous with the surrounding neighborhood
for the following reasons:
1) 2 stories is the most that has been allowed in the neighborhood previously.
2) It is normal, accepted development procedure to have commercial zoning beside high traffic areas.
3) There are already a plethora of apartments that have been and are being built in the area, including 212 units on
Happy Valley directly south of this property.
4) A buffer of residential homes on bigger lots would be more in keeping as a buffer to the County properties that are all
on 1.25 acre or larger lots.
For all of these reasons, I am completely opposed to the proposed zoning and in favor of the current zoning.
Sincerely,
Diane Habener :)
(925)209-6480
Sent from my iPhone
Page 831
David O Simmons
From: Diane Habener
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:31 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Development behind Circle K on 19th Ave and Happy Valley, Z-48-21-1 and GOA-
DV-2-21-1
Dear David,
I sent an email previously about this development. I live in the pocket of County and have my horses in the backyard.
The area is currently zoned commercial and should remain that way! A New Mexican Restaurant just opened on the
north side of Happy Valley, west of 17th Ave. It has been continuously packed since the opening! There is definitely a
need for more places with commercial zoning in this location!
At the last meeting, I asked why the apartments needed to be 4 stories and was told that it had to do with costs. It
should not be the responsibility of the neighbors to make this project work for the developers. Rather, it is the
developers who need to work with the existing neighbors. There is nothing in the area taller than 2 stories and most of
the homes in the area are in fact single story. To allow 4 story apartments to be built and be able to look into all the
neighboring yards is completely unacceptable.
Please listen to the already existing neighbors! We are the ones that have to live with the results of whatever is built.
There are plenty of other locations where apartments make more sense. At the last meeting, it seemed like they was a
lot of input from people that do not live right here in our area. More weight needs to be put on the neighbors that live
and plan on continuing to live in the area.
I would, also, like to speak at the upcoming meeting if I can figure how how to register to do that. The City’s system
does not seem to be very user friendly.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Diane Habener
25312 N 16th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Sent from my iPhone
Page 832
David O Simmons
From: Timothy Schollmeyer
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:19 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: APPl: GPV-DV-2-21-1 & Z-48-21-1
David Simmons,
We were just inform of this up coming meeting. We would like to attend this meeting. Please forward the information
necessary for us to attend. Very upset they this LLC did not post properly (14.10.020 Notice of public hearing
[codepublishing.com]) about the notice of the meetings. I guess we can blame this on COVID as well...... I have been
informed that this LLC has also purchased the land to the north of this and wants to do the same thing (3-4 story
Apartments). If this gets passed they will want to do the same thing on the north property he has purchased. Also why
were these families that the LLC bought the land from given upfront hush money ($5000) prior to this??????
I understand development, I have no issue with that. But I do have issues with 3-4 story apartments going up in my
neighbor. That makes them become low end housing and brings in the crime, drugs and violence. It will also put more
vehicles in our area that has a lot of traffic to begin with. If you stay with the single level bungalows/cottages that is a lot
less people and less traffic and the schools can handle to flow of new kids in area. Also the type of people that
the bungalows/cottages bring in are more family orientated not the rift raft.
Please forward information so my voice can be heard.
Dusty Schollmeyer
602-561-6651
Page 833
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 6:32 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Applications GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
Mr. Simmons,
I’m writing to voice my concerns and to be added to the attendance list for Thursdays meeting at 6p concerning
applications
GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
I speak for my household in that we are against the building of multi family housing on our county island.
Our county island is zoned R-43 and we are trying to maintain a neighborhood of like minded families who enjoy the
freedom of space, quiet and security.
With the city putting in apartments in every vacant lot around us and the increased growth of this area we are getting
choked out and others are being forced out. All of this do to the drop in property values, increased crime rate, excessive
traffic and pollution due to the swarms of people moving into this area.
The city already can’t keep up with fixing our roads from this boom in population. The roads aren’t wide enough to
accommodate the amount of people coming into this area, they’ve already had to add a electrical substation across
from this proposed location. All of this is adding to the smothering congestion and destroying our views and air quality.
I look forward to attending Thursdays meeting and sharing these issues. Please add me to the attendance list and share
my email with your colleagues.
Thank you,
James Whatley
Sent from my iPhone
Page 834
David O Simmons
From: James Wh
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 3:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1. GPA-DV-2-21-1 Toll Brothers Lumara virtual meeting
Hi David,
We had our follow up meeting with Toll Brothers last night regarding the proposed project on 19th ave north of Happy
Valley.
We had a good turn out from our neighbors and actually got some of our concerns and questions addressed, not
answered but addressed. We have an issue with one person that is always present and has had his comments read at
every meeting. His name is Clif Freedman and by some stroke of luck, his comments approving this build are always the
first ones read, followed by two anonymous comments in favor of this build as well. This has been the issue with the
meeting on 9-23 and the one last night, 10-19.
After looking up Mr. Freedman from his comments on Nextdoor app and googling him. I’ve discovered that Clif lives off
of Dove Valley road which is five miles away from this build site. Our concerns with this project do not affect him in
anyway.
I also discovered that in 2011, Mr. Freedman started the Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association to combat the
“Road to Nowhere” build that would connect his residential road of Dove Valley east to Cave Creek. He fought
adamantly against this, citing some of the same concerns that we are, ie: traffic congestion, air and noise pollution, loss
of character and beauty in an undeveloped area.
My question is, how can this man be totally against development one day and turn around and push so hard for this to
pass? The answer is, he can’t, he wouldn’t be unless he has skin in the game. He doesn’t even live near us and he is at
every meeting saying how wonderful this build is.
The second part of my question is, why are anonymous comments read and recorded? When you sign up for the zoom
call so that you can type in questions, you have to provide a name. When you type your question, it automatically inputs
that name into your comments. There is not an anonymous option!
As a community, we have talked and we would like all of Clif Freedmans comments stricken from the record along with
the anonymous comments as well. This is only fair, when these people i mentioned seem like planted positive remarks
perpetrated by Toll Brothers.
I’ve included pictures that show both Clif Freedman’s home address is the same as the address for his Sonoran
Conservation Association along with a picture of a map that shows where he actually lives.
Thank you for your time and involvement in this matter.
Sincerely,
James Whatley
480-297-4537
Page 835
Page 836
Page 837
Sent from my iPhone
Page 838
David O Simmons
From: Gwen
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:44 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: ApplicationsZ-48-21-1 & GPV-DV-2-21-1
David,
My name is Gwendolyn Currey.
I live at 25511 N. 16th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85085.
I am emailing you in reference to Application GPV-DV-2-21-1 and Application Z-48-21-1.
Please let it be known that we oppose both applications to build single family residences or multi-family residences in
my neighborhood located at NEC of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley for 470 per acre.
I have lived in this Maricopa County Island neighborhood since 1998. And I do not want this new development
here. Please do not approve them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jeffrey & Gwendolyn Currey
25511 N. 16th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85085
602-390-3922
Page 839
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:07 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1
Thank you, David,
We had a meeting with the developer last night by their choice. The first meeting they had never addressed our
concerns or comments that were made on their website or at the first scheduled meeting. This meeting was just a feel
good meeting for their attorney to state how irrational we are for wanting homes on their land! The high density
residential apartments are not in character of our rural area. Single family homes are.
We are zoned R-43 meaning one house per acre. This 15 acre development and the others in the area, Case # Z2021051
17acres & Article 26 on City of Phoenix Formal meeting September 15th are not conforming to our rural area.
The meeting attendance included 8 families under my zoom login. All families live adjacent to the developments or
within two blocks.
1. Tallent's
2. Butler's
3. Cocuzza's
4. Rusty lives on Parson's and 19th Ave 2nd house east 4. James Watley 5. Diane Habener 6. Wampler's 7. Murphy's 8.
Rimbly's
The four houses the the developer calls remnants, are dream houses to the homeowners. But, the deal for them was ALL
or NONE in the escrow.
This has bought their silence/voice to the development!
parcels:210-10-008B, 210-10-008D, 210-10-008F, & 210-10-008G
Norterra development to the west has single family homes 2 houses west of 19th Ave selling for 1.2 million! 19th
Avenue is not a bad place to be living. Why can we not have 3-5 houses on one acre? With more dense houses per acre
on the south side of the development? Years ago when we proposed a buffer for our community, it was stated the
medical office zoning would be the buffer. Now the developers want more land to get rezoned!
Please don't change our neighborhood. It's one of a kind!!!
*For the record I dispute the traffic study. It's misleading and inaccurate. I feel the developer tied to pull a fast one on
us. Traffic will disrupt and get re-routed throughout our neighborhood. When I-17 is closed or backed up, we see sooo
much traffic and dust. We cannot safely take a left (south) onto 19th Ave as of today.
* Why does the developer want to keep the CO/MO zoning? Fishy! What's the true intent of our backyard/front yard
area?
*Please consider homes 3-5/acre for this area and 19th Avenue at the very least. They will sell for high value.
*I-17 and Pinnacle Peak has rezoned 44 acres for apartments. This site is fitting for the requested development. Our
neighborhood is not.
Page 840
Thank you for your time and please don't recommend this development or
the others in our county island.
Stay Safe,
---
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
Yearling
Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
On 2021-10-20 15:33, David O Simmons wrote:
> Hi Julie,
>
> This case is located within the City Council District 1 boundary.
> https://www.phoenix.gov/district1 Ann O'Brien is the District 1
> Council Person.
>
> You may submit your letters of support/concern directly to me as I am
> the staff liaison to the Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
> https://www.phoenix.gov/villages/Deer-Valley I will save the
> correspondence to the case file to be included as part of the public
> record and attach it to the staff report as part of the public comment
> exhibit.
>
> Let me know if you have further questions.
>
> Respectfully,
>
> David Simmons, MA
> Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
> Village Planner *II
> 200 West Washington Street
> 3rd Floor
> Phoenix, AZ 85003
> 602-262-4072
> david.simmons@phoenix.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julie Burns
> Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:01 PM
> To: David O Simmons
> Subject: Z-48-21-1
Page 841
>
> Hello,
>
> We had another meeting with Toll Brothers last night. Who do we
> express our concerns to? I think we need both City of Phoenix,
> Maricopa County and Deer Valley staff. There are two maps out on the
> internet. Which District is ours? District 1 or District 2? Or, is it
> deferent by the city or county? And could you provide their names. Jim
> Waring, Kat Galleo, Thelda Williams ect.
>
>
>
> --
> Julie Burns,
>
> Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
> 623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W
> Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical Address: 24401 N 15th Ave
> Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 842
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 2:06 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: Z-48-21-1 & GPA-DV-2-21-1
Good Afternoon,
I wanted to express our concern as a neighborhood of the Happy Valley island located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley
regarding the neighborhood meeting held last night. The comments of the neighbors were not placed on record. We
also weren't addressed to express our ideas or concerns with the project of four story high density apartments.
Let it be clear, we are not thinking this project is in the General Plan for development and is not fitting the feel and
character of the rural neighborhood.
Four or more neighbors are in escrow with the homeowners and the developer has silenced them.
When will the city and county meeting be live again. Many neighbors are not having their voice added to the
development.
Sincerely,
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 843
David O Simmons
From: Julie Burns
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:50 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Letter for the informational meeting Sept 9th
Attach for the comments, please. Please add me to attend, however, my work schedule may not allow. I am a RN, BSN
and emergencies come up.
# GPA-DV-2-21-1
# Z-48-21-1
eptember 6, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
c/o David.simmons@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1)
To Whom It may Concern,
I do request this letter be read into the record of this hearing. I would also like to attend the virtual meeting, however, I
may miss the meeting due to work schedule. But, I do want a say in the informational meeting.
Our county island is rural. Our dogs don’t need to be walked because they have over an acre or two to run on. We walk
our horses and donkeys on this county island! I get so many people and kids stopping just to see a horse! Their children
look at them like they are zoo animals. This is sad! Please keep the feel of our rural life and limit the growth of this
intrusive development into our backyard!
Our county island is a place we ride razors (street legal) to our neighbors for driveway/backyard get togethers.
Our county island is a place we have lived in for an average of over 20 years. This statistic used to be 40 years. Our
children are buying land and building houses on this county island. Our neighbors are selling their larger homes to buy
land in this area to build a smaller home.
They don’t want to leave this county island.
Some of our county island neighbors are in escrow with the developer to buy their homes. This is just to silence them
from the development. They were all paid over $1,000,000 for their home. Now, they are finding what can they buy for
1 million….? Nothing that is comparable to what they owned in the county island. So, they will downsize to a more
glittered house that is more socially accepted…..
Not everyone in the county island can be silenced or bought. We love our rural character .… Can you love it too?
The massive development is NOT suited for this charming rural way of life. The original Deer Valley Meeting talked of
medical offices. This would be the right buffer for our rural neighborhood. Not a four story high density building with
residences of over 470 per acre!
We are zoned R-43. This high density development is not found within over a 15 mile radius to the north and over 20
mile radius to the south.
This type of high density deveolpment is ever further to the west and east.
Page 844
Deer Valley Staff- I plead with you to not let this ruin our character and way of life for our families and animals.
Sincerely,
Julie Burns
1717 W Yearling Road & 1732 W Yearling Road
602-695-3903
--
Julie Burns,
Corporate Secretary Hawkeye Landscaping Inc. Office 623-582-1122 fax
623-434-1814 hawkeyecustomlandscaping.com Mailing Address: 1717 W Yearling Rd Phoenix AZ 85085 Physical
Address: 24401 N 15th Ave Phoenix AZ 85027
Page 845
David O Simmons
From: Lamb Chops
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:24 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 / Request for Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Designation
Dear Mr. Simmons:
As a 9 year resident of the community of Fireside at Norterra, I am writing to voice my concern and opposition to the
request to amend the size of the land use at the corner of 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road.
There has been much development in this area (Happy Valley / W Jomax Rd / N 19th Ave.) in the 9 years I have lived in
the area - both Commercial and Residential. It is most concerning to see a proposal that would substantially increase
the residential units per acre to 15+ for MORE multi-family housing in addition to what has been approved and not yet
completed. I fear even more grid-lock at the two intersections of N 19th Avenue with no proposals or current
construction for improvements to accommodate the increase in traffic.
Residents in the area have felt the adverse impact of the growth. In the last 5 years we have worked together to have a
much needed new Firehouse built in the area (in record time no less) to reduce the high response times as well as
having a left turn arrow installed at W Happy Valley Rd and N 19th Ave because of the wait times to make a left turn
there. These are things that seemed to be oversights when development was approved and they took time to put into
place.
Please consider the negative impact to current residents of the area when you hear proposals to amend the land
use. The area cannot absorb more residents without having terrible repercussions from it.
Thank you,
Karen Gundling
Page 846
David O Simmons
From: Kim Cocuzza
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:45 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Comment to meeting 19th Ave-Reference Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I am a neighbor and concerned citizen. I live at 25813 N 17th Avenue, Phoenix. We do not want the current zoning
changed to high density, I see the posted sign shows 470 homes per acre? We do not want our rural way of life and
character of the neighborhood changed. We are completely opposed to the zone change. How can we express our
opinion further?
Best,
Kim
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented
auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet.
Kim K. Cocuzza
Realtor
AARE
www.kimcocuzzarealty.com [kimcocuzzarealty.com]
LA/Ventura Phoenix/Prescott
805-501-0771- 480-616-1675
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this
picture from the Internet.
To help protect y our priv acy , Microsoft O ffice prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Page 847
David O Simmons
From: Homeschool Mom
Sent: Thursday, September 23, 2021 6:19 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1
Hi David
I just want to let you know I oppose this project. I think we need to bring this back to a residential area, where you can
bring the housing up to like 3 houses to an acre. We have major traffic problems on 19th Ave. Last weekend the freeway
was shut down both directions for an accident on I-17 and Happy Valley on the freeway, so all that traffic backs up on
19th Ave which makes it almost impossible for us to get out of our neighborhood. Then on Tuesday night there was an
accident at 19th Ave and Briles Rd, it was a 3 car accident with a head on and shut down 19th Ave both north and south.
So we have major traffic problems.
Also we are concerned about the height of the apartments because across the road on the west side of 19th Ave is only
2 story buildings.
Thank you for reading about my concerns, Kimberley Wampler.
602-451-1327
Page 848
David O Simmons
From: Homeschool Mom
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:31 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
I want to be a part of the meeting, I don't think we need more apartments in our area. 19th Ave is not equipped for
more traffic, and we have apartments going in everywhere around us already.
Thank you, Kimberley Wampler
Page 849
David O Simmons
From: Marjorie McCaw
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 4:36 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
Hello:
I am reaching out in opposition to the proposed Rezoning and potential apartment complex Referencing Z-48-21-1 and
GPA-DA-2-21-1. I believe this will lower our housing value and bring more crime to the area. I do not see this is anything
beneficial for our neighborhood and oppose any such rezoning or construction of any apartments at the referenced
location.
Thank you for this consideration.
>>
>> Marjorie McCaw
>> 1647 W Briles Road
>> Phoenix AZ. 85085
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
Page 850
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 22, 2021 2:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: ReferenceZ-48-21-1. 2nd ref is GPA-DV-2-21-1. Toll Brothers 14 acres and Case
#Z2021051 17 acres rezone R-2 by Melissa @ Parsons /19th ave.
I am writing again to let you know I am completely against any apartment building in this area. My understanding from the
gentleman at Toll Bros they chose this area because of its location and close to the Plant being built at I 17 and 303. It is
his opinion the future employees would prefer apartments to houses. I agree some of them probably will, however I am of
the opinion some of the future employees will prefer homes and yards and possibly animals. which is where our area
comes in to play.
As you are aware our neighborhood has valid concerns re traffic and how we have been affected by the growth of the
area as it is. It is very difficult to make a left hand turn out of the side streets onto 19th Ave. At rush hour times The Toll
Bros representative was of the opinion that the Apartment Complex would in anyway affect this problem. However if all
this apartment dwellers are going to work at the plant @ I17 and 303 they will soon discover going North on 19th Ave to
Jomax will be the easiest way to get to I 17. Making it impossible in the mornings to make a left turn onto 19th Ave.
Our next concern are the detours necesary because of accidents or road closures of Happy Valley, 19th Ave or I 17. when
this happens traffic detours through our neighborhood. According to Toll Bros most drivers will not take off on any of the
County Roads so first of all these are private roads not county roads and yes the drivers will happily use the non
maintained private roads if it will get them to where they are going, We have had this experience many times over the past
few years. This is a rural area and we request it stay this way. Putting in homes on 1 acre lots is reasonable.
So at this time all I can do is pray for our neighborhood.
Oh, how I miss sitting outside in the evening and listening to the occasional horse neighing or cow mooing or even a
coyote howling. Thank you for listening
Sincerely
Martha B Tallant
25814 N. 17the Ave
Phoenix, Az
Page 851
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:59 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z - 48 - 21 - 1. 2nd ref is GPA-DV-2-21-1
I am writing this memo to let you know as a long time resident in this neighborhood (since 1972) that I am completely
against placing apartments of any kind. It is my opinion that this neighborhood has been infringed upon enough. This area
should remain residential with 1 home per acre. Thank you for listening. Martha B Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave. Phoenix,
Az 85085
Page 852
David O Simmons
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 2:11 PM
To: tmoran@swlaw.com; David O Simmons; ngriemsmann@swlaw.com
Cc: rmccann@swlaw.com
Subject: Re: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good Afternoon,
I was scheduled to speak last Thursday the 23rd on Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DV-2-21-1. No one registered to speak was
given the chance to. Toll Brothers did questions and answers from all supportive people. We are a small community and
I know most all are not supportive of 3 and 4 story apartments in our area. This will change how we live in our community
not be mention several other major issues.
Sincerely,
Melissa Crawford
-----Original Message-----
From: Moran, Taylor N.
To: David O Simmons
Cc: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 8:58 am
Subject: RE: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good morning,
Below please find the link to participate in the virtual neighborhood meeting.
https://swlaw.zoom.us/j/91544723195?pwd=V2RmZmJBMTRMUXJUQTByUUJoSnEwdz09 [swlaw.zoom.us]
We look forward to discussing the project with you.
Thank you,
Taylor Moran
Urban Planner
Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
One Arizona Center
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202
602.382.6589
tmoran@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com [swlaw.com]
Denver, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Los Cabos, Orange County, Phoenix, Reno, Salt Lake City, Tucson
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:43 AM
To: Griemsmann, Noel
Cc: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Subject: RE: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Page 853
[EXTERNAL] david.simmons@phoenix.gov
Taylor,
I think the citizen below is interested in speaking at your required neighborhood meeting. See email below.
Thanks,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 8:08 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Fwd: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Please add me to speak on GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21 Sept 23rd at 6pm
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
-----Original Message-----
From: tryitonjewels
To: David.simmons@phoenix.gov
Sent: Wed, Sep 22, 2021 7:38 am
Subject: 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Good morning,
Can you please add me to speak at the meeting for Toll Brothers 19th Ave and Happy Valley Sept 23rd at 6pm. I am a
neighbor.
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
Page 854
David O Simmons
From: tryitonjewels@aol.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 1:49 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Application GPV-2-21-1 and App Z-48-21-1 N 19th Ave and Happy Valley
Dear Mr. Simmons,
Our family lives north of these parcels that are applying to be re-zoned. We are against this re-zoning. We have lived
here 17 years and are concerned about the 3 to 4 story apartments that are attempting to change our community. The
added traffic and increase of crime and disturbance of our community is unwelcome. We have young children who call
this their home. We are asking for your consideration of our community and future. Please add me, Melissa Crawford to
the virtual meeting on Sept 9th at 6:30
Thank you
Melissa Crawford
623 606 7248
1736 W Parsons Rd
Phoenix, AZ 82085
Page 855
David O Simmons
From: Nicole Hudson
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 8:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DV-2-21-1
Hello David,
I’m emailing you regarding the proposal for 470 residents per acre in the 13.8 acres by Circle K Deer Valley. Z-48-21-1
and GPA-DV-2-21-1.
I own at 1650 W Yearling RD in the county island.
I am shocked at this proposal. The county island is a rural community that is already overwhelmed with an unsafe
amount of traffic on 19th ave with the addition of Union Park. The infrastructure cannot handle 470 residents additional
per acre in this area. Absolutely not.
We bought here to be in a rural community. The traffic patterns have significantly changed since the addition of union
park and we are already at capacity of traffic on 19th Ave on any given day.
I’m emailing you to let you know the residents of the county island DO NOT want this development to be approved.
These types of developments do nothing for the community or for property values. Yet most importantly the
infrastructure cannot handle this traffic and will not be safe.
We love biking and walking in our area to the Desert Vista Trailhead and if this proposal is approved those days are over.
It’s already borderline safe during rush hour mornings and afternoons. This mass housing development will ruin the
nature of our entire community.
Thank you for your time. Please take our concerns to heart as we love our little piece of the desert here and don’t want
it violated by developers.
Respectfully,
Nicole Hudson
Professional Wake Surfer
403-466-6618
Page 856
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1) September 9 meeting
September 6, 2021
Deer Valley Village Planning Committee
c/o David.simmons@phoenix.gov
RE: Z-48-21-1 (Companion Case GPA-DV-2-21-1)
To Whom It may Concern,
I respectfully request that this letter be read into the record of this hearing as I am unable, due to work
schedules, to speak at this hearing.
We are so very tired of Investors buying property with existing unopposed zoning knowing that they can buy the Zoning
they want. It is truly incomprehensible to us that you would even consider taking land within this area and
change the residential density to such an astronomical degree.
We have lived in the home we built since 1988. When we built the County requirements for this "island" were
a minimum of 2.5 acres to build a home. When that changed to 1.25 we were saddened, but knew we at least
maintained the rural integrity of the area. There are many other long term residents, as well as new, and we
all chose this area for exactly what it is and then invested in that dream. Our monies were used to build homes
and lives for our families. We are all vested in the very Nature of this "island". This proposed Zoning change for
the purpose of this "Developer/Investor" would destroy all that we've all worked so hard to maintain.
Once again, the Property Owners and residents of the Triangular Maricopa County Island bordered by Happy
Valley to the South, the CAP and Jomax to the North & East, and 19th Avenue to the West are being strong
armed and railroaded. Many/Most of us are long term property and home owners, and became that with the
expectations and assurances provided, over the MANY MANY years, by the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee, that we could be comfortable in the fact that the vision for our properties was in line with the
homes and structures that we were investing our lives and families in. We held faith in that reassurance and
saw that could be maintained, with the examples of areas already out there similar to ours, even if eventually
annexed into the City. Sunburst Farms area, Western Meadows area, Hidden Manor and many more. One of
the factors in that faith was the diversity that the Cities in the Metropolitan areas of the Valley have
maintained for Decades, an enormous variety of housing and spaces working together to provide continuity
for all.
Most of these areas have in common the ability to transition thoughtfully from one type to the next. That
certainly happened here already. The USAA development wasn’t the most welcome development to most of
Page 857
us with a minimum 1.25 acre parcel to build our homes, but it was far enough away from our little triangular
patch to allow us breathing room. Especially with the barriers USAA provided their development with along
19th Avenue. Now you are proposing to allow 40 times or more that density into a small 13+ acre site directly
connecting to and looking right into our backyards. To those future residents I’m sure this will look like an
oasis as there is nothing to stop them from utilizing our private roads for dog walking, jogging, kids dirtbiking,
etc etc etc……
Please for once, stick to your guns and do not modify what has been assured OVER and OVER throughout the
years to us, people that invested their lives to build life long generational homes for their families. There are
MULTIPLE parcels of land in this area to build high density housing as is witnessed heavily within a 2 mile
radius of our County Island. Allow us to maintain that character that we have spent years and lifetimes
building.
If you go thru with this approval, shame on you. But I will also state ( as I have very little faith in the way the
system works $$$) If you allow any development at all, at least at a minimum require that there are NO entry
points directly into our neighborhood and NO heights that could intrude upon or affect our monetary and
lifetime investments which we have all worked so very hard to maintain. (IE: max one story structures)
And BTW we are also extremely disappointed that living on 17Th Ave just North of Parsons never generated a
written Notice from anyone about this proposed project, so I feel its quite likely that many in our area are
unaware of this proposed change in land use. We only quite recently found out ourselves. Working families do
not have time to keep a constant Vigil on Vultures so please expand your notifications to a larger radius.
I will close this PLEA with one more reminder. Part of what makes Phoenix and the “Valley” a very unique and
desirable “Big City” to live in are the diverse types of lifestyles scattered throughout the entire City for people
to choose from. County Islands can and do add a great deal to this choice and diversity, and to those of us that
have embraced this lifestyle, we should be protected in some way. Our area is small and with constraints due
to the CAP, Happy Valley Rd. & 19th Ave. We all knew there was no stopping some commercial development
on Happy Valley, but with the abundance of properties out there outside of our small triangular rural R-43
area, why not just allow us to be what we are without having to fight this fight over and over again. If people
buy R-43 land, that’s how it should remain, even if the City annexes. Investors take chances on being able to
manipulate and change what they buy, that does not obligate the City to give in for every deep pocket
applicant that comes along, especially when they would be destroying what has been successfully embraced
by many lifelong residents.
In conclusion, Please at the minimum, at least maintain the current zoning as it NOW reads for ALL of the
parcels involved in this land grab.
Closing this still with Hope.
Best Regards
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 858
David O Simmons
From: Robert McKee
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 10:00 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: #Z-48-21-1, GPA/DV- 2-21-1
Mr. Simmon,
I would like to register to speak for the meeting referenced above. Please send me a link when appropriate.
I oppose changing the 13.48 acre plot from 3-1/2 - 5 dwellings + per acre.
I would like the residential portion to remain 3-1/2 - 5 dwellings per acre.
I also oppose changing any RU43 zoning, to PUD.
I would like the plots developed in alignment with the original general plan for these proper
Thank you,
Robert McKee
Page 859
David O Simmons
From: ssharyasz@gmail.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 2:05 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Proposed Toll Brothers Apartments
Good afternoon David,
My name is Sandy and I live near the area where Toll Brothers is seeking authority to build 470 apartments in a
residential area. I am strongly opposed — asking the City to deny Toll Brothers request.
While I do not have the exact number of new housing units off 19th Ave and Happy Valley, I can tell you I have seen
tremendous growth in less than 3 years in this particular area. I believe there are 1400 homes planned for in Union Park
and several hundred apartments ( with more to be built). There is also a new elementary school within the Union Park
community. In addition, the Elux housing development on 19th and Happy Valley recently opened with several hundred
units.
As you are aware, all along the 19th Ave corridor hundreds ( I would think closer to a thousand) of new housing units
have either opened or are being built. In addition near this area ( on Pinnacle Peak) there is an about to open Amazon
distribution center with 750 trucks!
The City is now considering a 470 apartment complex in this already condensed area. 19th Ave, nor Happy Valley, nor
Pinnacle Peak (as an alternate) can handle the amount of traffic these new developments will bring. Additionally you
have small and large businesses sprinkled amongst all of the new units.
I realize apartments are needed for the growing population of Phoenix. I’m confident there is land available for housing
developments in less congested and high growth areas. I implore you to deny Toll Brothers request. This area is already
too congested and already approved housing units and businesses (like Amazon) are not even open yet and contributing
to the congestion. For the safety of children attending the elementary school in Union Park and for the children at
Norterra Elementary off Jomax and 19th.
Please work with us and make safety a priority for those of us who live near this area, have to drive our children to
school in this area everyday, and already face severe traffic congestion.
I thank you in advance for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
Page 860
David O Simmons
From: Shantel hitchcock
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 5:57 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: I am a homeowner in this area, and I do not wish for these said multi family homes to
be built here at 19 ave and happy valley! We are becoming a fast over populated area!
We need not for this to happen!!...
Sent from my iPhone
Page 861
David O Simmons
From: Stephen Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 3:24 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Reference Z – 48–21–1 the second reference is GPA-DV-2–21-1
I am voicing opposition to the proposed Rezoning and potential apartment complex Referencing Z-48-21-1 and GPA-DA-
2-21-1. I believe this will lower our housing value and bring more crime to the area. I do not see this is anything
beneficial for our neighborhood and oppose any such rezoning or construction of any apartments at the referenced
location.
Stephen Baker Murphy
1647 W Briles Road
Phoenix AZ. 85085
Sent from my iPhone
Page 862
David O Simmons
From: vickie hunt
Sent: Tuesday, September 7, 2021 7:11 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Applications GPV-DV-2-21-1 and #Z-48-21-1
Mr. Simmons,
I am writing with my request to be added to the attendance list for this meeting concerning applications GPV-DV-2-21-1
and #Z-48-21-1.
I along with my family and neighbors are extremely concerned with the amount of apartments being built on county
land around us. We don’t have the proper roads and resources for this growth. Our family, as well as our neighbors all
around us have been here for decades and have watched the city developers pick off land. Homes would be one thing,
but putting apartments and bungalows on every inch of vacant land is not only taking away the scenic beauty of the
desert but it’s putting all of us in a bad situation. Again, I’d like to be added to the meeting attendance so I can listen in.
Thank You,
Vickie Hunt
>
>
Sent from my iPhone
Page 863
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-48-21-1 (INFO ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting September 9, 2021
Request From C-O/M-O and RU-43 (Maricopa County)
Request To PUD
Location Approximately 825 feet south of the southwest corner of
23rd Avenue and Pinnacle Peak Road
Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
1 speaker card was submitted in favor, wishing to speak
7 speaker cards were submitted in opposition, wishing to speak
Mr. Nick Wood, Snell & Wilmer, representing the applicant, provided a detailed
overview of both the General Plan Amendment (GPA) request and the Rezoning
request. He started by highlighting the quality of the Toll Brothers brand and
quality of their products. He continued by highlighting the reasoning behind Toll
Brothers decision to move forward with the subject site. He stated that the area is
close to residential amenities, employment hubs and transportation corridors. He
also shared that this area is growing rapidly and there is a need for alternative
forms of housing in the area. Mr. Wood covered the request for the GPA and
provided reasoning behind the need for the map change to Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre. He went on to address community concerns that he was
aware of to include a stepback approach to building elevations along the northern
and eastern property boundaries and enhanced landscaping to act as a buffer to
nearby large lot residential. He also highlighted an open fencing concept that
would make the site look more aesthetically pleasing to surrounding property
owners, giving them the benefit of the enhanced landscaping proposed. Mr.
Wood went over the site plan in detail highlighting that this proposal will be a
gated, luxury multifamily development with resort like interior courtyard
amenities. He highlighted that any noise generated from residents of the
community would be contained within the interior courtyards of the development,
completely surrounded by living units. Mr. Wood went o er the development
standards table. Further, Mr. Wood showcased the conceptual rendering of the
elevations, site plan and landscape plans depicting a high quality design that Toll
Brothers is known for.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil left the meeting at approximately 7:15, bringing quorum to 8.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 864
Public Comment:
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing directly north of the subject site, shared
concerns about increased traffic, increase in population density, crime, and the
character of the rural area changing.
Ms. Michelle Gardner, VPC member, asked Ms. Crawford what her greatest
concerns are.
Ms. Crawford shared that her greatest concerns are the proposed height and
traffic.
Ms. Diane Habener, residing east of the subject site, has concerns with the
proposed height and recommended a maximum of two-stories.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Ms. Habener if she resides within the
County Island.
Ms. Habener shared that she does reside within the County Island boundaries.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing north of the subject site, shared concerns about
loosing a perceived buffer zone between Norterra and the County Island, which
is currently zoned commercial. She shared that she and her neighbors were
expecting a single story commercial office use being built on this site. She
shared concerns related to proposed height, increase in traffic, and stated that
this PUD request is not wanted.
Mr. Clif Freedman, residing at 1716 Buckhorn Trail, shared that he is supportive
of the request. He shared that the concerns about proposed height are irrelevant
due to the existing entitlement son the site allowing up to four-stories. He shared
that he supports the project, supports Toll Brothers and highlighted that Toll
Brothers builds high end projects. Further, he shared that tenants of a high end
development such as this would not result in an increase in crime.
Mr. James Whatley shared that he is opposed to the request. He has concerns
about the character of the area changing and increase in population. He asked
that the zoning stay as it currently is.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood spoke to the concerns and shared that commercial zoning traffic
counts are much higher than residential uses. He also highlighted that the
majority of units are I bedroom, which may result in 2-3 people maximum
residing in a single unit. He introduced Ms. Dawn Cartier with Civ Tech, a traffic
engineering company, to speak on traffic volumes.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, CivTech Traffic Engineers, went over the traffic report and
highlighted the anticipated number of trips per day that would be generated from
such a use, which is much lower than a commercial center would generate.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 865
Mr. Wood offered a rebuttal to the height concerns and highlighted the
stepbacks proposed and the enhanced landscaping that acts as an aesthetically
pleasing buffer between exiting large lot residential uses to the north and to the
east.
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked Mr. Wood if existing single-family homes
have already sold to Toll Brothers. He also wanted to confirm is self-storage was
directly adjacent.
Mr. Wood confirmed that there are property owners that have already sold to the
developer and that there is a self-storage use adjacent to the subject site.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 866
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-48-21-1
Date of VPC Meeting December 9, 2021
Request From C-O/M-O (5.29 acres) and County RU-43 (Pending S-1)
(8.19 acres)
Request To PUD (13.48 acres)
Location Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of
19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation
Vote 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee
Members Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis,
Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy, Lewis, Shipman and
Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
VPC DISCUSSION:
Cases GPA-DV-2-21-1 and Z-48-21-1 were heard concurrently.
The Planning Commission will consider this request on January 6, 2022.
Mr. David Simmons, staff, provided an overview of the request to include
background of how the area developed overtime. He went over the GPA and
Rezoning requests concurrently as they are companion cases and reminded the
Committee that the GPA case will require a motion prior to the rezoning request.
Mr. Simmons shared how the GPA request is consistent with several core values
of the General Plan. He explained that the rezoning request supports several
policy plans to include the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Deer
Valley and North Black Canyon Employment Centers, Comprehensive Bicycle
Master plan, Tree and Shade Master Plan, Complete Streets Guiding Principles,
Zero Waste Phoenix as well as helps to meet the goals of The Housing Phoenix
Plan. Mr. Simmons also shared the reasoning behind several of the proposed
stipulations for the case. He also shared that an annexation request for the
eastern portion of the site is running concurrently with the GPA and rezoning
request.
Mr. Nick Wood, representing the applicant, provided a greatly detailed
presentation to include how this proposal is consistent with development trends
int eh surrounding area, the General Plan Land Use Map designation change,
vehicular and pedestrian circulation plans for the site, enhanced landscaping
standards proposed, and an explanation of the approved traffic study showing
how the proposed use will not adversely affect traffic flows int the area. Further,
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 867
Mr. Wood elaborated on the high quality architectural embellishment proposed
for the façade, the view fencing, and the proximity to residential as well as the
building height in relation to residential and the more intense Norterra to the
west.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Keith Greenberg asked staff is the annexation request just included this site
or more land area surrounding the site.
Mr. Simmons, staff, hared that the annexation request is for the four residential
lots that make up the easter portion of the subject site. No other land area
surrounding the site is included int eh annexation request.
Mr. Greenberg inquired as to where ingress and egress was gong to occur on
the site.
Mr. Wood shared that the site plan configuration was updated due to Street
comments that Desert Hollow Drive was going to be improved, resulting in an
ingress/egress point there as well as an ingress/egress point off of 19th Avenue.
Further, he shared that queuing could occur on Desert Hollow Drive during peak
hours and a median will be installed along 19th Avenue, which will act as a traffic
calming feature.
Mr. Greenberg asked how many living units are currently proposed.
Mr. Wood shared that a maximum of 470 units are proposed.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo shared that there are many other apartment complexes
int eh area and their traffic flows do not have an adverse effect on local traffic
patterns. She shared that a commercial use on this site would generate much
higher traffic volumes.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked if 19th Avenue was going to improved.
Mr. Simmons shared that 19th Avenue will be improved in accordance with the
Cross section A requirements of the Street Classification map.
Ms. Dawn Cartier, with CivTech, explained the traffic study and went into detail
about traffic patters resulting from specific uses.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked what the rental rates were and what is the current
proposed density.
Mr. Wood shared that the density proposed is 34 dwelling units per acre, which
is much lower than a typical multifamily request he represents. Further, he
shared the rental rates will be $1.76 a square foot which translates to $1200.00
for a one bedroom.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 868
Chairman Joseph Grossman asked what the original proposed number of units
were prior to making modifications to the site plan as a result of the improvement
requirements for Desert Hollow Lane.
Mr. Wood shared that the original proposed number of units was 500.
Mr. Stuart Kimball applauded the applicant on such a detailed presentation and
their public outreach efforts. He also stated that with the required 19th Avenue
improvement, traffic concerns should be eliminated as lanes will be added.
Public Comment:
Ms. Laura Bates, residing at 1744 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
increased traffic volumes and requested a secondar traffic study be conducted.
Mr. Brian Bates, residing at 1744 W Parsons Rd, shared that he too has traffic
concerns as there are equestrians in the areas well as livestock. He also shared
concerns in regard to loss of property values as a result of this development and
drainage concerns.
Mr. Nick Wood explained that grading and drainage goes through a rigorous
plan review proves to include on-site retention. He shared that, if needed, large
retention compartments will be installed underground o eh subject site.
Ms. Melissa Crawford, residing at 1736 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about
equestrians in the area, the character of the area changing and devaluations of
properties.
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked how many people showed up for the public meetings.
Ms. Crawford stated she believes the numbers were skewed due to COVID and
the meetings taking place over the holiday season.
Ms. Julie Burns, residing at 1717 W. Yearling Rd, shared concerns about
livestock in the area needing large dirt lot, which will create dust and other
nuisances for future residents. Further, she shared concerns about the character
of the area changing.
Ms. Marjorie McCaw, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing.
Mr. Stephen Baker-Murphy, residing at 1647 W. Riles, shared concerns about
buffers, transitions between uses in the area, character of area changing and
devaluation of existing large lot residential properties due to proposed
development.
Chairman joseph Grossman asked Mr. Baker-Murphy how long he has lived in
his home.
Mr. Baker-Murphy shared that he has resided in his home for four years.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 869
Ms. Kim Cocuzza, residing on 17th Ave, shared concerns about the character of
the area changing and increased traffic.
Ms. Alison McKee, residing at 1219 W. Parsons Rd, shared concerns about the
character of the area changing, livestock in the area and traffic volume
increasing.
Mr. Cliff Freedman, residing at 1716 W. Buckhorn Trail, spoke in support of the
proposal. He highlighted that more housing options are needed in this area and
the City of Phoenix is growing rapidly and housing demand cannot keep up.
Applicants Response:
Mr. Nick Wood stated that housing needs are a result of supply and demand. He
shared that the City of Phoenix is currently the fastest growing city in the nation
attracting over 90k new residents per year. He asked for a recommendation for
approval.
VPC Discussion:
Mr. Ozzie Virgil asked is this site lies within the boundaries of the Deer Valley
Airport Overlay (DVAO).
Mr. David Simmons, staff, shared that it does not lie within the DVAO.
Mr. Mark Lewis asked staff to share details about the proposed bungalow
project taking place just to the north of the subject site.
Mr. Simmons shared that the bungalow project is located within the boundaries
of Maricopa County. Therefore, staff does not have purview over that project and
cannot speak to it.
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo stated that she is sympathetic and understanding of the
publics concerns. However, growth is inevitable for this area considering the
incredible investments going in all around. She also stated that traffic is not going
to be of grave concern considering the use. Further, she stated that more
housing options are critically needed in this area.
MOTION:
Vicechair Trilese DiLeo motioned to approve Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1,
per the staff recommendation
Mr. Mark Lewis seconded the motion.
VOTE: 10-0-1, motion to approve passed, with Committee Members
Grossman, DiLeo, Davenport, Fergis, Gardner, Greenberg, Kenney, Levy,
Lewis, Shipman and Virgil in favor. Mr. Kimball abstained from the vote.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 870
Attachment E
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 7
DISTRICT NO.: 1
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-48-21-1 (Lumara PUD)
Location: Approximately 270 feet north of the northeast corner of 19th Avenue and
Happy Valley Road
From: C-O/M-O and County RU-43 (Pending S-1)
To: PUD
Acreage: 13.48
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: Toll Brothers
Owner: Happy Valley 19, LLC
Representative: Nick Wood, Esq., Snell & Wilmer, LLP
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Deer Valley 9/9/2021 Information only.
Deer Valley 12/9/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 10-0 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Deer Valley Village Planning
Committee recommendation with an additional and modified stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-48-21-1, per the Deer
Valley Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as read into
the record, and a modification to Stipulation No. 3 per the applicants request.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The site is located at the intersection of two arterial streets and in close proximity to an
employment center west of 19th Avenue. The proposed standards in the PUD provide a
transition from more intense development on the west side of 19th Avenue to
undeveloped property to the east of the subject site.
2. The proposed development will provide diverse housing options in the area within close
proximity to designated employment centers.
3. The Development Narrative contains standards that exceed ordinance requirements
Page 871
including enhanced setbacks along three sides of the site as well as enhanced
landscape standards.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Lumara 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 November 22, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Remove “HEARING DRAFT” and revise submittal date
information on bottom of the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: July 7, 2021
2nd Submittal: September 10, 2021
3rd Submittal: October 07, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 22, 2021
b. Page 9; The streetscape adjacent to 19th Avenue requires the A Street
Section. An A section requires detached sidewalks where a minimum 5-foot-
wide sidewalk is required, and a minimum 13-foot-wide landscape area is
required.
c. Page 8; add Minimum, 15 percent open space to development standards table.
2. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
3. The developer shall construct and landscape a 24-foot-wide median in 19th Avenue,.
for the full limits of the project THE MEDIAN SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE
FOR FULL MOVEMENT (NORTH/SOUTH/EAST/WEST) AT 19TH AVENUE AND
DESERT HOLLOW DRIVE, as approved by the Planning and Development and Street
Transportation Departments.
4. Full access-control to the site shall only be permitted at 19th Avenue and the Desert
Hollow Drive alignment, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City.
6. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of the 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.
7. The developer shall provide documentation to the City of Phoenix prior to 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
Page 872
separate Form 7460-1 shall be submitted to the FAA and a “No Hazard Determination”
obtained prior to the construction start date.
8. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
9 PRIOR TO 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 873
Attachment F
210-04-367
210-04-364 210-10-020C
210-04-378 210-04-375
210-04-480
210-04-382210-04-371
210-10-018A
210-04-368
210-04-379 210-04-374
210-10-014C
210-10-0 20D
210-04-372
210-04-383210-04-370
210-04-478 210-04-365
210-04-369
210-04-380 210-04-373
210-04-366 210-10-010 210-10-018B
210-04-381
210-10-0 14E
210-04-437
210-04-384 210-10-0 31A
210-10-018C
210-04-436
210-04-385
19TH DR
210-04-386
210-04-435 210-10-0 14F
210-04-387
210-04-434 210-10-014A
210-04-388
210-04-433
210-04-389
210-04-432
210-04-431
210-04-390
210-04-391
210-04-430
210-04-392
210-04-429
210-04-393
210-04-428
210-10-008G 210-10-016A
210-04-394
210-10-008F
210-04-427
210-04-395
210-04-426 210-10-027A
210-04-396
210-04-425
210-04-479
210-04-424
210-04-397
210-04-423
210-04-398
210-04-422
210-04-399
210-04-400
210-10-0 03
210-04-421
210-04-404
19TH AVE
210-04-409 210-04-403
210-04-408
210-04-405 210-04-402
210-04-407 210-04-401
210-10-009B
210-10-008B 210-10-008D
210-04-406 210-04-480
210-10-0 30B
210-04-485
17TH AVE 210-10-013A
210-10-0 19H
210-10-0 19F
210-10-0 19D
210-10-023A
210-04-484
210-10-0 19G
210-10-0 17F 210-10-0 29K
210-10-0 29M 210-10-005
210-10-0 17H 210-10-0 29L
Legend
Zoning Petition Area
HAPPY VALLEY RD
Proposed Amendment Area
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 1/18 = 6%
Lots/Tracts/Condos
% Area = 0.40ac./26.02ac. = 2%
Signed Petition
210-05-022 210-07-050B 210-07-083 3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED
210-07-084 210-07-089
Petition Verification Map
0 70 140 Feet Page 874 for Z-48-21-1
Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning and Development Services Dept. 1/14/2022
Page 875
Page 876
Page 877
Page 878
Page 879
Page 880
Page 881
Page 882
Page 883
Page 884
Page 885
Page 886
Page 887
Page 888
Page 889
Page 890
Page 891
Page 892
Page 893
Page 894
Page 895
Page 896
Page 897
Page 898
Attachment G
David O Simmons
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2021 4:09 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: ngriemsmann@swlaw.com; pjaramillo@swlaw.com
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I apologize I had a family emergency come up last night so I was not able to attend the call. I would like to show my
support of the Toll Brothers and their proposed project on 19 th ave. I believe Toll brother builds a great product and
confident that it will bring quality living spaces to the area.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
From: David O Simmons
Sent: Tuesday, December 7, 2021 8:26 AM
To: Lupo, Matthew J.
Cc: Griemsmann, Noel
Subject: RE: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Mr. Lupo,
Thank you for reaching out in regard to Rezoning Case No. Z-48-21-1 and GPA-V-2-21-1. I have saved your comments
below to the case file to be included as part of the public record. I have also cc'd the applicant so they are aware of your
support.
The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee (DV VPC) will hear the cases at the December 9, 2021 meeting. I have added
your name to the speaker roster for the December 9, 2021 meeting. Please click on the registration link on the attached
agenda to register for the meeting.
The Planning Commission will hear the case at the January 6, 2022 meeting and the City Council will make a final
decision on February 2, 2022.
The applicants hearing draft of the development narrative can be reviewed here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/pdd/planning-zoning/pzservices/pud-cases
The cases are filed by case number (Z-48-21-1)
Please let me know if you have additional questions or concerns.
Page 899
Respectfully,
David Simmons, MA
Paradise Valley & Deer Valley
Village Planner *II
200 West Washington Street
3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003
602-262-4072
david.simmons@phoenix.gov
From: matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Sent: Monday, December 6, 2021 5:50 PM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Request for Link for Zoning Case Z-48-21-1
Hello David,
I would like to request a link for case Z-48-21-1, items #3,4 and request to speak in support of Proposed project at 19 th
ave and Happy Valley road.
Thank you
Matt Lupo
Branch Manager
22nd Ave And Happy Valley
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A | 2123 W. Happy Valley Rd | Phoenix, AZ 85085
Mac S4104-011
Tel 623-587-3700 | Fax 623-587-3707
NMLS ID 774377
Matt.j.lupo@wellsfargo.com
Page 900
David O Simmons
From: RS B
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 8:34 AM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers project
Dear Councilmember O’Brien.
My name is Rosa Somohano and I am a resident in North Phoenix
Our area is growing tremendously and I am thankful for the many employers moving into the area. What is needed now
is more housing options. I received a presentation on the proposed Toll Brothers projects to be located at Happy Valley
Rd. and 19thAve and I really like it. It has so many great amenities and most importantly is a higher end development.
This will encourage and promote safety for our area and be attractive to the many employees who are now working in
our area.
I also appreciate that they will be screening residents for income and criminal history, developing out some of 19 th Ave
and once finished, will enhance that corner that is badly in need of development.
I hope you will consider supporting this project, which I believe will be perfect for our area
Thank you for your time. Happy Holidays.
Best,
Rosa Somohano
2526 W Rancho Laredo Dr
Phoenix, AZ 85085
(770)595-2384
Page 901
David O Simmons
From: SCIA
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 1:45 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Please support Toll Brothers at 19th Avenue and Happy Valley Road
Dear Councilmember O’Brien,
My name is Clif Freedman and I am the President of Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association. We represent the
area of zip code 85085.
Our mission is to advocate for proper development that supports the housing needs in our area.
With the large number of employers moving into Phoenix and particularly into the North Valley, it is imperative we
offer housing options.
A mixture of options is necessary to support the various preferences of those individuals moving into the
area. When looking at multi family, we specifically prefer controlled environments that promote and ensure the
safety and aesthetics our northern area enjoys. For this and many other reasons we whole heartily support the
proposed Toll Brothers project located at 19th Ave and Happy Valley Rd.
This project will:
Maintain a Gated Entry
Will be Screening residents for income and criminal history
Provides an amazing building design that includes enhanced landscape and superior architecture
It’s height is appropriate for the area
IT will promote walkability in the area
It also offers and extensive menu of amenities that screams “high end” housing.
Further:
It takes an undeveloped piece of land and enhances that corner
It is a downzoning – which is incredibly important to our association. The downzoning will decrease traffic
in the area
This project will be building out 19th Ave – which is incredibly valuable for current traffic needs
Toll Brothers is a reputable company who holds a reputation of building and managing beautiful
properties.
For these reasons – I encourage your support of this project.
The additional housing is greatly needed in the area and this is exactly the type of multi housing we should
celebrate.
Thank you for your time.
Clif Freedman
1716 West Buckhorn Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85085
623-444-9445
Clif Freedman, President
Page 902
Sonoran Citizens Improvement Association SCIA
SonoranCitizens@gmail.com
Page 903
David O Simmons
From: matthew crook
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:13 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Case #Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members O’Brien and Simmons,
I support this project at 19th Ave and Happy Valley. It’s a needed improvement to the area. More housing and business
for the area.
Matthew Crook
General Manager IHOP 3083
2103 W Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 904
David O Simmons
From: brebek3@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2021 4:48 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1, Toll Brothers - Happy Valley and 19th ave
Working for businesses in the area at 19 ave and Happy Valley. I support this project. This type of
housing is needed in the area. This also supports revenue for businesses in the area
Page 905
David O Simmons
From: Amer Atwan
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2021 6:12 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley And 19th AVE
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. House of this type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city
Amer atwan: Director Of Operations
Mesquite Fresh Street Mex
1730 West Happy Valley Rd
Phoenix Az, 85085
--
Amer Atwan
Corporate team member
Phone Number: (602) 775 3019
Page 906
David O Simmons
From: Jennifer Hammond
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:22 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Case # z-48-21-1
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this area. It will also creat more revenue for the businesses and
city.
Thank you,
Jennifer Hammond
IHOP
2103 w Happy Valley Rd, Phoenix, AZ 85085
Page 907
David O Simmons
From: Scott Dennin
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 2:55 PM
To: counsil.district.1@phoenix.gov
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Counsel Members: O'Brien and Simmons
We support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue
for the business and city.
Scott Dennin - District Trainer
AZ - District 015
SmartStop Self Storage
(602) 657-6725 - Cell
www.smartstop.com [smartstop.com]
Page 908
David O Simmons
From: Lan Ngo
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 3:11 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC
Cc: David O Simmons
Subject: Reg: Case # Z-48-21-1
Toll Brothers Happy Valley and 19th Ave
Council Members: O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of that type is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more revenue for the
businesses and city.
Name: Lan Ngo
Company:
Happy Feet Nails & Spa 3
1730 W Happy Valley Rd Suite 103
Phoenix AZ 85085
623-248-54209
Page 909
David O Simmons
From: David Dominguez
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:46 PM
To: David O Simmons; Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Fwd: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll brothers happy valley and 19th ave
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: David Dominguez
Date: January 12, 2022 at 2:43:26 PM MST
To: council.district.1@phoenix.gob
Subject: Case # Z-48-21-1 Toll brothers happy valley and 19th ave
Council members : O’Brian and Simmons
I support this project . Housing of that types is needed in this neighborhood. It will also create more
revenue for the business and city
Obed David Dominguez
Jacksons Car Wash
2591 W happy Valley Rd
Sent from my iPhone
Page 910
David O Simmons
From: Larry Chandler
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 4:01 PM
To: Council District 1 PCC; David O Simmons
Subject: Case # Z-48-21-1 Till Brother's Happy Valley & 19th ave
Members: O'Brien and Simmons ......... I support this project. More business for all of us!
From Larry Chandler @ AutoZone
Happy Valley Rd 1750 w. Happy Valley
Page 911
David O Simmons
From: Johnson, Chris
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 5:27 PM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC
Subject: Regarding Case# Z-48-21-1 Toll Brothers Happy Valley 19Th Ave
To council members O'Brien and Simmons
I support this project. Housing of the type is needed in this area for community for growth. It will also create
more revenue in the area and foster small businesses.
Thanks
Chris Johnson | Assistant General Manager
Courtyard by Marriott Phoenix North/Happy Valley
Residence Inn by Marriott Phoenix North/Happy Valley
2029 W. Whispering Wind Drive| Phoenix, AZ 85085
P: 623.580.8844 | F: 623.580.8845 | cjohnson@ncghotels.com
www.marriott.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]/phxbc | www.marriott.com
[nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]/phxrb | www.ncghotels.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
Exceptional Hotels. Inspiring Careers. | www.ncgcareers.com [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
Sign Up to Stay in Touch! [nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com]
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain confidential, privileged and/or
proprietary information which is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of these
documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in error, please notify the sender immediately
and delete this e-mail, any attachments, and all copies.
Page 912
Attachment H
David O Simmons
From: Wayne Hudgeons
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:23 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: GPA-DV-2-21-1 (Companion Case Z-48-21-1):
My name is Wayne Hudgeons and I live at 25406 N 17th ave.
I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to the request to amend the General Plan Land Use of the 13.48 acres. I
feel that this community is great with the zoning that we have and that is why we purchased a place to call home. The
rezoning to multi family dwellings or apartments does not go with the character of our neighborhood. When we bought
a house here to make our long term home we knew there would be development, we are not opposed to development.
We made a conscious choice after looking at the zoning, knowing that there was the study for 300 feet of commercial
along Happy Valley and there would be a medical building on 19th ave, that would add value to our community. The rest
of the undeveloped land in the General Land Use Map and current zoning was R-43. Another reason would be the extra
noise and light pollution would not be a good fit with our rural community of horses and livestock, even with light
shades and directional lighting it very stressful to horses. The extra traffic that would come through our private
community maintained roads would also be a major burden.
Best Regards,
Wayne Hudgeons
623-340-0579
Page 913
David O Simmons
From: wmags@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, December 9, 2021 10:44 AM
To: David O Simmons
Subject: Z-48-21-1 and DV:2-21-1
This is Martha Tallant 25814 N. 17th Ave, Phoenix,Az 85085. I am requesting that you please consider our way of life. We
are a rural area, we want to stay this way. One house per acre.
I am against placing apartments of any kind in this small area. I am s urprised at all the apartment buildings along 19th Ave
North of Pinnacle Peak, along Happy Valley at 17th ave ,again at 35th ave and along Jomax and I 17. We simply do not
need any more apartments.
Thank you for listening and please give our area some consideration.
Mrs Martha Tallant
25814 N, 17th Ave
Phoenix,Az 85085
Page 914
David O Simmons
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 10:07 AM
To: David O Simmons
Cc: Council District 1 PCC; Melissa Crawford; Julie Burns
Subject: Re: Z-48-21-1 : (Companion Case No. GPA-DV-2-21-1) - OBJECTIONS
Mr. Simmons,
I was unable to join this meeting, but certainly we are quite disappointed from the things I have heard about
how the meeting in general was conducted and the evident Approval by the Commission. We had high hopes
based upon earlier Staff comments involving the protection from high density for the east side of 19th Ave.
I have several Inquiries / Requests related to this meeting / decision;
First, is there a link to a visual and audio recording of this meeting as I would like to review that footage, and
are there transcribed minutes that can be reviewed ? I would appreciate a link to any and all pertaining to that.
Secondly, in Maricopa County there is an opportunity to Appeal decisions made by their Commission,
RE:
Appeal of Planning and Zoning Commission Recommendation
1. Appeal FormIf the Planning & Zoning Commission recommends approval of a particular case it will be placed on
a consent agenda for the Board of Supervisors hearing. However, if this appeal form is received within 15
calendar days following Commission hearing, then the agenda item will be placed on the regular agenda for the
Board of Supervisors hearing.
does the City offer a similar or any appeal process to your decisions?
My understanding from things I have heard is that the presenter for Toll Brothers and another person stated
many untruths in reference to our neighborhood and the people that reside here.That is one of the many issues
that I feel we should have the opportunity to rebut, as well as being able to examine the names on the list of
people he purported were all in favor of this build. I also understand that there was a gentleman speaking that
stated or implied that he was someone with some kind of authority to represent the people of the 85085 zip
code. I would like to know more on that issue as well. I can promise you that he does not in any way represent
anyone that we are aware of within our County Island and those are the people that should be listened to with
the most concern.
None of us are against housing on this property, we are aware housing is in short supply, but that supply should
be a variety of offerings, as apartments are generally not where people choose to live their entire lives. And as
stated over and over again throughout the years by the Deer Valley Planning Commission, transitional areas
such as ours where people do have actual homes with actual families that are already well established in their
lives on R-43 land deserve some thoughtful consideration as to what will appropriately border their properties.
We are having to maneuver our way through this process all while we work our full time jobs and juggle life.
Page 915
Now we are all presented with the biggest threat to our environment and Rural zoning and we find it quite
unfair that people with deep pockets and no real ties to our community can just come in and bully their way
through a process without someone giving careful consideration to those of us who live here (and we don't feel
that is happening).
Maybe it would be appropriate for the people who will make the final decisions to come out to our
neighborhood to see and speak to those of us who actually RESIDE here, we can't offer fancy presentations, but
coffee and cake could be provided, so consider that an open invitation Ms. O'Brien and colleagues. I'm sure
one of us would be happy to host.
I would appreciate any and all information that you can supply to help us pursue these matters further.
Respectfully,
Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85085
As an example we would like to point out that we do not feel that the principals quoted below are being applied
to our neighborhood and this developers request. We at a minimum deserve more time and ways to present our
side of this, keeping in mind we have limited funds but alot of heart. Working within the numerous and diverse
work schedules is challenging for us all which is why we ask to somehow find more time for us to present our
case.
https://www.phoenix.gov/villagessite/Documents/pdd_pz_pdf_00472.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0iWTGrEX7DmCh5vtN
_x-995n-sdKyXOZWaROqUKVlXs_by27dEUXBoVAY
Quotes;
"Protect and enhance the character of each neighborhood and its various housing lifestyles through new
development that is compatible in scale, design, and appearance"
"Require appropriate transitions/buffers between neighborhoods and adjacent uses"
"The village is characterized by its desert setting and mountains, diverse and growing communities, and large
employment centers. It is distinguished by its attraction for business, variety of
housing types and density ranges"
"Additionally, the village is an active area of the city for the construction of single-family homes and
redevelopment. Development within the Deer Valley Village should integrate into and incorporate elements of
the natural desert environment."
https://www.phoenix.gov/pddsite/Documents/PlanPHX%20General%20Plan%202015%20Executive%20Summ
ary.pdf
A BLUEPRINT FOR A CONNECTED OASIS - Phoenix, Arizona
Exete Say THE BLUEPRINT: A STRATEGIC SET OF TOOLS Using the Five Core Values as the foundation for
the Vision, the updated General Plan will also contain a list of strategic Tools within each of the Five Core
Values that will be implemented by staff,
Page 916
www.phoenix.gov
Quotes;
"Phoenix will continue to be like no other city in the world. A place steeped in history, defined by its beautiful desert
setting, activated by unique neighborhoods and
businesses"
"Celebrate our Diverse Communities and Neighborhoods"
" Certainty & Character - Through the development of guiding principles for every Phoenix neighborhood, residents will
have greater levels of certainty about their quality of life and protections to ensure that their neighborhood remains
unique and livable."
Page 917
From: Laurel Brodie
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:06 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Julie Burns
Subject: City of Phoenix ‐ GPA‐DV‐2‐21‐1 and Z‐48‐21‐1
The Zoning in our County Island is R‐43 and at least 50% plus of our County Island built and conform with R‐43 zoning. That is why
we bought and built on this property 30+ years ago. At a Minimum your decisions should lean heavily to those of us that did not buy
property zoned for something else becasue it was cheaper than buying land zoned for our intended purpose. BOTH of these
proposed developments (even though one is City and the other County) are taking advantage of the residents within this island and
obviously have much deeper pockets than we.
The people that own and reside in the area that will be greatly impacted by this type of density change. Therefore the opposition
from homeowners within our entire County Island area should be given the most weight.
It should also take into account the following;
The Owners of Parcels ‐ 210‐10‐008B ‐ 210‐10‐008D ‐ 210‐10‐008F ‐ 210‐10‐008G ‐ should have NO VOICE in this development as
they have already been strong armed into selling out to the developer
The Owners of The Bungalows at Norterra should also have NO VOICE Parcels 210‐10‐027A , 210‐10‐031A, 210‐10‐020D, 210‐1‐
=020C, 210‐10‐010
And both Developers should be treated as hostile voices as they are supporting each other in their bids to effect unalterable life
changing events within our land‐locked County Island.
The majority of the Parcels within our boundaries ( 19th Ave‐Jomax‐CAP‐Happy Valley) are Owned and Occupied Homes built within
the constraints of Maricopa County R‐43 Zoning. Based upon Documents published over the Years by the Deer Valley Planning
Commission, we had every reason to expect our area would remain as is (even if the City of Phoenix successfully annexed us all) . We
understand there is a need for housing, buy there is a need for all types of housing and anything built of the vacant lands within our
boundaries should be with that in mind. Multi Family dwelling is not transitional to R‐43. Single Family Homes on no less than .33
acres could be seen as transitional. It might also be seen as quite desirable to those who would prefer not to live in high density
developments.
There have been statements by the Developers and some Planning Staff that would imply the residents of our area do not really care
as we haven’t been vocal enough or “organized” in our opposition to these Developments. Please keep in mind that especially over
the last 2 years life has become very busy and stressful for many many people. None of us are being paid to sit in these meetings
over and over again, it is difficult to even keep up with any information as written letters are not sent to each of us as homeowners,
signs are installed with no dates, then dates, then dates that change AND we are having to OPPOSE (2) developments side by side
that both want the same outcome AT THE SAME TIME !! It may not seem like it to you but we are trying our best to show you with
the resources and time that we have. I have spent many of my days off work speaking with and trying to compose coherent and to
the point letters. I don’t find that easy as I am a long winded person (I am aware) but I am also passionate and find it difficult to be
anything else when we are speaking of losing what we have spent our lives building.
Phoenix is in need of ALL TYPES of housing and our perimeter has already been subjected to higher density developments, now you
want to come directly INTO our small “Island area” with even higher density allowances. I cannot comprehend how that can be
defined as Transitional. Just one of these developments will increases the current population by probably more than 300 %. We
implore you to protect those that need protecting and VOTE NO to these changes
Respectfully
Richard & Laurel Brodie
25657 N. 17th Avenue
Phoenix AZ 85085
Page1 918
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-DSTV-1
-19-2 - Approximately 900 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway (Resolution 21991)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-46-19-2 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-46-19-2.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03 acres),
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (2.18
acres), Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling units per acre (197.23 acres),
Parks/Open Space - Public (12.74 acres)
Proposed Plan Designation: Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling unit per acre
(118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (94.56
acres)
Acreage: 213.18 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Pan Amendment to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential development.
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard the case on May 4,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 7,
2021 and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and
Page 919
Desert Peak Parkway.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 920
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DSTV-1-19-2. The
213.18 acres of property located approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner
of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway is designated as 118.62 acres of
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling unit per acre and 94.56 acres of Residential 2
to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre.
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 921
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 922
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
December 6, 2021
Application: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant/Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Acreage: 217.86 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.50
acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(2.19 acres), Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre (201.01 acres), Public
Parks/Open Space (13.16 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit
per acre (122.42 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
(95.44 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential development
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Page 923
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a minimum of
120 acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park.
2) The proposal for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to
10 dwelling units per acre will allow for a mix of residential products, as
proposed by the companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2. The proposal for
Future Parks/Open Space or one dwelling unit per acre supports the future,
intended use of the land for a preserve or desert park. The proposal balances
the need for additional housing, while retaining and preserving the desert
landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and Sonoran Preserve
Master Plan.
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, incorporates development
standards that will maintain an appropriate scale and character with land uses
in the surrounding area.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway. The site is currently vacant, but is
used privately for various recreational activities.
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 proposes a Jomax Road
minor amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Map to allow a mix
of residential densities, while
preserving most of the site as open
space. The companion rezoning
case, Z-46-19-2, proposes a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subject
to allow a mix of single-family and Site
multifamily development, not to
exceed a maximum of 250 dwelling
units. The proposed PUD
Development Narrative includes
development, landscaping, and
design standards that exceed
Zoning Ordinance standards and
provide appropriate edge
treatments for adjacent
developments.
Aerial Map, Source: Hilgart Wilson
Page 924
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
The site is located approximately 0.85 miles from Cave Creek Road. An increase in
intensity on a portion of the site will support future transit along Cave Creek Road and
connect residents to existing and future employment, housing, and services in the
area.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The current General Plan Land Use Map designations for the site are Residential 2 to
5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Future Parks/Open Space, and Public Parks/Open Space.
EXISTING PROPOSED
+/- Acres
Existing and Proposed General Land Use Designation Maps, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 proposes to change the Land Use Map designations to Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre. The Future Parks/Open Space of 1 dwelling unit per
acre designation is intended for the more sloped and hillside portion of the site. This
Page 925
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
portion is intended to be preserved and donated to the City as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park. The Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre designation is cross hatched to allow flexibility in
placement of units while preserving natural areas.
NORTH
North of the northern boundary of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area,
a park that is overseen by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. This area
contains a number of dams that control flooding from washes in the general area.
This area is designated Publicly Owned Parks/Open Space.
EAST
East of the subject site is a portion of Cave Buttes Recreation Area and vacant land
that is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). This area directly east
of the subject site is designated Publicly Owned Parks/Open Space, Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre.
SOUTH
South of the subject site is a single-family residential development designated
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre. The Hillstone North and Hillstone South subdivisions are subject to
Rezoning Case No. Z-43-02, which rezoned the subdivisions to R1-18 and R1-6,
respectively. The PUD development narrative for the companion Rezoning Case No.
Z-46-19-2 contains perimeter standards which will act as a buffer between the
proposed development and the existing subdivisions to the south.
WEST
West of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area designated as Publicly
Owned Parks/Open Space. The Cave Buttes Dam, a dry dam to prevent flooding in
north Phoenix, is also located west of the subject site. A small portion west of the site
and part of the Hillstone North subdivision is designated Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
Page 926
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
As proposed, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 will preserve the majority of the site as open
space and allow for an increase in intensity along the remaining portion of the
site that is respectful of local conditions. Companion case, Z-46-19-2,
incorporates appropriate development standards that are compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
• BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; LAND USE PRINCIPLE:
Promote land uses that preserve Phoenix’s natural open spaces.
As proposed, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 will preseve the majority of the site as open
space. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a
minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition
to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that
support a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and concurrent
rezoning case will allow for a mix of housing types and residential densities at
the subject site. These will be compatible in scale, design, and appearance to
development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the diverse housing
products will support a broad range of lifestyles for Phoenix residents.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre. This General Plan Amendment request and concurrent case Z-46-19-2 will allow
a mixture of single-family and multifamily residential development, not to exceed 250
units. The proposal will further the City’s goals of providing a mix of housing types
while respecting neighborhood character. The proposed change to Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre will support that 120 acres of the site
will be retained as park/open space to be donated to the Parks and Recreation
Department. Additionally, the proposed change to Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre will allow increased density in close proximity to Cave
Creek Road.
Writer
Julianna Pierre
December 6, 2021
Page 927
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 928
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 ACRES: 217.86 +/-
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.50 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.19 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future ( 201.01 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 13.16 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
Preserves / 2 to 3.5 or 3.5 to 5 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 122.42 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac and Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 95.44 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du / ac & 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 929
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2_BW ACRES: 217.86 +/-
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.50 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.19 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future ( 201.01 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 13.16 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/acre
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du
E E E E
Preserves / 2-3.5 or 3.5-5 du/acre
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 122.42 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac and Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 95.44 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area JOMAX RD
Residential 2 to 3.5 du / acre & 5 to 10 du/acre
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du
E E E E E
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 930
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per
acre, and Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned
Request To Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Use Mixture of single-family and multifamily residential (not to
exceed 250 units)
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany and Bosco, provided information about the site
and the surrounding area. He explained that the site is approximately 213 acres in total,
but the majority is hillside (approximately 130-150 acres) and will be donated to the City
of Phoenix’s Parks and Recreation Department. He explained that the areas below the
10% slope will be developed as single-family and multifamily residential. He stated that
the developable area of the site will also have open space with community amenities.
He added that the proposed development would be similar to other existing
developments in the area, such as Fireside at Norterra, Aviano by Toll Brothers, and
Fireside at Desert Ridge.
Jason Israel, asked how many units will be built on site. Bill Lally stated that the
developer anticipated a maximum of 250 units, with a target of 239 units.
Jason Israel asked if a traffic study was completed. Bill Lally stated that a traffic study
was completed and that all access points to the proposed development could
accommodate the additional traffic flow.
Chair Steven Bowser asked for clarification about impact fees. Bill Lally explained
that there are impact fees in the area, but those fees may not take into account all of the
needs in the area. He stated that the developer is working with City staff to determine
the needs of the area and how the development will help pay for those needs.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 931
Joseph Barto asked about future meetings and community involvement. Bill Lally
stated that an initial neighborhood meeting was held, but no community members
attended. He stated that there will be a second neighborhood meeting in the coming
weeks and expects increased engagement.
Rick Nowell asked for clarification regarding the acreage donated to Parks and
Recreation. Bill Lally explained that design, access, amenities, and security will be
determined by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Jill Hankins asked if Desert Peak Parkway will connect to 7th Street or Happy Valley
Road. Bill Lally explained that the Street Classification Map depicts a connection
between Pinnacle Peak Road and Happy Valley Road to the west.
Jill Hankins asked if the City has a Hillside Ordinance. Bill Lally stated that the City
does have a Hillside Ordinance, which essentially states that areas with less than a
10% slope can be developed using standard subdivision regulations. He added that
development on areas with greater than 10% slope would require a disturbance waiver.
Gary Kirkilas, a member of the community, asked if the property abuts the Sonoran
Preserve or Cave Buttes Recreation Area and whether edge treatments would be
implemented. Bill Lally stated that he would follow up to this question after determining
whether the site is directly adjacent to the preserve or recreation area.
Gary Kirkilas asked for clarification regarding the infrastructure limit line. Bill Lally
stated that when developing outside an area with existing infrastructure, a waiver would
be required, but the proposed development would not require any waivers. He added
that over the past year the developer’s engineering team determined how to bring utility
infrastructure to the site.
Michelle Butler, a community member who lives adjacent to the site, stated that the
proposed development would be directly adjacent to the North View at Stone Butte
community. She stated that the existing subdivision is gated, but people already think
that their neighborhood is part of the preserve and have faced numerous security
issues. She added that the preserve donation is positive in theory, but there would
need to be a clear separation from the existing communities. Bill Lally stated that the
proposed development would be exclusive and the proposed preserve would be a
secured public asset with limited access. He stated that there could also be signage
along Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to direct people to the appropriate
access point.
Dennis Hasenbank, a member of the Stone Butte community, stated that he was
originally interested in the area because of the lower density and open space. He
expressed concerns with higher density, higher activity, and security.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 932
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Current Plan Designation Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03 acres),
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre (2.18 acres), Future Parks/Open
Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre (197.23 acres), Public
Parks/Open Space (12.74 acres)
Requested Plan Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre
Designation (118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre (94.56 acres)
Reason for Requested Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to allow a
Change mixture of single-family and multifamily residential
development
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
This item was heard concurrently with Item #8 – Z-46-19-2.
2 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that there are two proposals,
a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezoning request. She stated that the GPA
request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Parks / Open Space –
Publicly Owned to Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre and
Residential 2 to 3.5 and 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the rezoning
request is to rezone the property from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD). She stated that the proposal is to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development is proposing two land uses.
Approximately 95 acres of the site is below the 20% hillside slope line and will be
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 933
developed with a mix of single-family and multifamily residential, not to exceed 250
units. The remaining approximately 120 acres will be donated to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert
park. She also reviewed the permitted uses and development standards. She also
discussed how the site is within the boundaries of the North Land Use Plan and the
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan and how the PUD proposes to align with those plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff findings and stipulations. She noted that GPA-
DSTV-1-18-2 did not have any stipulations and the stipulations reviewed were for Z-46-
19-2. She added that staff recommended approval for GPA-DSTV-1-18-2 and
recommended approval, subject to stipulations for Z-46-19-2. She stated that staff had
not received any community correspondence.
John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, discussed the site and conceptual
land uses. He noted that 5% of the approximately 95 acres of the site below the 20%
slope line will be utilized as common open space. He also discussed the development
standards for the single-family attached, single-family detached, and multifamily areas
of the site. He also discussed how the proposed development is similar with the
surrounding area. He stated that the site will have additional amenities including
pedestrian access to mountain preserves, ramadas with trellises, seating and gathering
areas, picnic areas, and playgrounds. He also discussed the hillside and wash edge
treatment guidelines.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that since this development is south of Jomax Road
he had no concerns with the proposed density.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there needs to be a connection to 7th
Street and asked about the plans for Jomax Road. Nguyen Lam, representative with
Hilgart Wilson, stated that there are no plans to improve the Jomax Road alignment.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there should be an additional stipulation
requiring a connection to 7th Street. John Oliver stated that the developer had
completed a traffic impact statement, which was routed to the Street Transportation
Department. Julianna Pierre stated that the Street Transportation Department
recommended a stipulation requiring the developer to complete a Traffic Impact Study
which will determine the necessary dedications and infrastructure improvements. She
added that stipulations cannot be added that tie a particular development to any larger
traffic improvements that are offsite.
Committee member Michelle Santoro expressed concerns because the land use plan
lacked detail. John Oliver stated that the developer did not have a builder, so the
standards provided were crafted to allow flexibility. He added that there is no
percentage specified for multifamily and single-family, but there will be a maximum of
250 units. He added that a minimum 120 acres of the site will be donated to the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, stated that the site is too dense with 250 units
on the developable area. He expressed concerns with the project being directly
adjacent to Sonoran Desert areas.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 934
Scott Coll, a member of the public, expressed concerns with the single point of
proposed access to the site which would impact police and fire department response
times.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave reiterated the positives of the proposed development, which
were the site adjoining other existing developments, a 120-acre donation, and the
northernmost edge of the development abutting, but not extending into the adjacent
recreation areas.
Committee member Rick Powell stated that this is the natural progression of
development and the proposal makes sense since it is adjacent to other developed
areas.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to approve GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as
presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Powell.
VOTE: 11-0 with Committee Members Bowser, Lagrave, Barto, Hankins, Kollar, Neely,
Nowell, Powell, Santoro, Warren, and Younger in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 935
Attachment E
ADDENDUM A
General Plan Amendment Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
December 21, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Current Plan Designation Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03
acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(2.18 acres), Parks/Open Space - Future / 1
dwelling unit per acre (197.23 acres),
Parks/Open Space - Public (12.74 acres)
Requested Plan Designation Parks/Open Space - Future / 1 dwelling unit per
acre (118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
(94.56 acres)
Reason for Requested Change Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential development
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation Approval
On May 4, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request as an
information only item. On December 7, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning
Committee heard this request and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
The purpose of this addendum is to revise an error in the acreage calculated for the
case and subsequently included in the staff report. The original acreage was incorrectly
calculated at 217.86 acres when the east side of the site boundary was aligned with a
zoning boundary further east. The amendment area has been remapped correctly to
align with the property boundary, and the revised acreage of the site is 213.18 acres.
Page 936
Addendum A to the Staff Report GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
December 21, 2021
Additionally, the acreages for the existing and requested plan designations were
corrected, as noted above. Staff is supportive of the request per the revised acreages.
Exhibits
Revised Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 937
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 ACRES: 213.18 +/- REVISION DATE
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 12/10/2021
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.03 +/- Acres)
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.18 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 197.23 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 12.74 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
Preserves / 2 to 3.5 or 3.5 to 5 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 118.62 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac /Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 94.56 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 938
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2_BW ACRES: 213.18 +/- REVISION DATE
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 12/10/2021
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.03 +/- Acres)
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.18 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 197.23 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 12.74 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/acre
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
E E E E
Preserves / 2-3.5 or 3.5-5 du/acre
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 118.62 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac /Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 94.56 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area JOMAX RD
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / 5 to 10 du/ac
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
E E E E E
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 939
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway
From: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves/Residential 2 to
3.5/3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Parks/Open Space – Future 1
dwelling unit per acre, and Parks/Open Space - Public
To: Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to
3.5/Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 213.18
Proposal: A minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential.
Applicant: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosca, PA
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosca, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 5/4/2021 Information only.
Desert View 12/7/2021 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, per the
Addendum A Staff Report.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gaynor
Vote: 6-2 (Perez, Bushing)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a minimum of 120
acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain
Preserve or a desert park.
2. The proposal for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre will allow for a mix of residential products, as proposed by the
Page 940
companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2. The proposal for Future Parks/Open Space or
one dwelling unit per acre supports the future, intended use of the land for a preserve
or desert park. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining
and preserving the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, incorporates development standards that
will maintain an appropriate scale and character with land uses in the surrounding
area.
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 941
Report
-19-2 - Approximately 900 Feet North of the Northeast Corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway (Resolution 21991)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
resolution if approved. This file is a companion case to Z-46-19-2 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-46-19-2.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03 acres),
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (2.18
acres), Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling units per acre (197.23 acres),
Parks/Open Space - Public (12.74 acres)
Proposed Plan Designation: Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling unit per acre
(118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre (94.56
acres)
Acreage: 213.18 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Pan Amendment to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential development.
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Info: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard the case on May 4,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard the case on Dec. 7,
2021 and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and
Page 919
Desert Peak Parkway.
Council District: 2
Parcel Addresses: N/A
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 920
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION _____
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
2015 GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, CHANGING THE LAND USE
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution No. 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-DSTV-1-19-2. The
213.18 acres of property located approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner
of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway is designated as 118.62 acres of
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 dwelling unit per acre and 94.56 acres of Residential 2
to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre.
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 921
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
Page 922
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
December 6, 2021
Application: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant/Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Acreage: 217.86 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.50
acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(2.19 acres), Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre (201.01 acres), Public
Parks/Open Space (13.16 acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit
per acre (122.42 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
(95.44 acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential development
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Staff Recommendation: Approval
Page 923
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
FINDINGS:
1) The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a minimum of
120 acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park.
2) The proposal for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to
10 dwelling units per acre will allow for a mix of residential products, as
proposed by the companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2. The proposal for
Future Parks/Open Space or one dwelling unit per acre supports the future,
intended use of the land for a preserve or desert park. The proposal balances
the need for additional housing, while retaining and preserving the desert
landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and Sonoran Preserve
Master Plan.
3) The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, incorporates development
standards that will maintain an appropriate scale and character with land uses
in the surrounding area.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway. The site is currently vacant, but is
used privately for various recreational activities.
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 proposes a Jomax Road
minor amendment to the General
Plan Land Use Map to allow a mix
of residential densities, while
preserving most of the site as open
space. The companion rezoning
case, Z-46-19-2, proposes a
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Subject
to allow a mix of single-family and Site
multifamily development, not to
exceed a maximum of 250 dwelling
units. The proposed PUD
Development Narrative includes
development, landscaping, and
design standards that exceed
Zoning Ordinance standards and
provide appropriate edge
treatments for adjacent
developments.
Aerial Map, Source: Hilgart Wilson
Page 924
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
The site is located approximately 0.85 miles from Cave Creek Road. An increase in
intensity on a portion of the site will support future transit along Cave Creek Road and
connect residents to existing and future employment, housing, and services in the
area.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The current General Plan Land Use Map designations for the site are Residential 2 to
5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre, Future Parks/Open Space, and Public Parks/Open Space.
EXISTING PROPOSED
+/- Acres
Existing and Proposed General Land Use Designation Maps, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 proposes to change the Land Use Map designations to Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre. The Future Parks/Open Space of 1 dwelling unit per
acre designation is intended for the more sloped and hillside portion of the site. This
Page 925
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
portion is intended to be preserved and donated to the City as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park. The Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre designation is cross hatched to allow flexibility in
placement of units while preserving natural areas.
NORTH
North of the northern boundary of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area,
a park that is overseen by the Maricopa County Flood Control District. This area
contains a number of dams that control flooding from washes in the general area.
This area is designated Publicly Owned Parks/Open Space.
EAST
East of the subject site is a portion of Cave Buttes Recreation Area and vacant land
that is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). This area directly east
of the subject site is designated Publicly Owned Parks/Open Space, Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre.
SOUTH
South of the subject site is a single-family residential development designated
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre. The Hillstone North and Hillstone South subdivisions are subject to
Rezoning Case No. Z-43-02, which rezoned the subdivisions to R1-18 and R1-6,
respectively. The PUD development narrative for the companion Rezoning Case No.
Z-46-19-2 contains perimeter standards which will act as a buffer between the
proposed development and the existing subdivisions to the south.
WEST
West of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area designated as Publicly
Owned Parks/Open Space. The Cave Buttes Dam, a dry dam to prevent flooding in
north Phoenix, is also located west of the subject site. A small portion west of the site
and part of the Hillstone North subdivision is designated Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre.
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
Page 926
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
As proposed, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 will preserve the majority of the site as open
space and allow for an increase in intensity along the remaining portion of the
site that is respectful of local conditions. Companion case, Z-46-19-2,
incorporates appropriate development standards that are compatible with
surrounding neighborhoods.
• BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY; LAND USE PRINCIPLE:
Promote land uses that preserve Phoenix’s natural open spaces.
As proposed, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 will preseve the majority of the site as open
space. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a
minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition
to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that
support a broad range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and concurrent
rezoning case will allow for a mix of housing types and residential densities at
the subject site. These will be compatible in scale, design, and appearance to
development in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the diverse housing
products will support a broad range of lifestyles for Phoenix residents.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per
acre. This General Plan Amendment request and concurrent case Z-46-19-2 will allow
a mixture of single-family and multifamily residential development, not to exceed 250
units. The proposal will further the City’s goals of providing a mix of housing types
while respecting neighborhood character. The proposed change to Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre will support that 120 acres of the site
will be retained as park/open space to be donated to the Parks and Recreation
Department. Additionally, the proposed change to Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre will allow increased density in close proximity to Cave
Creek Road.
Writer
Julianna Pierre
December 6, 2021
Page 927
Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 928
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 ACRES: 217.86 +/-
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.50 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.19 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future ( 201.01 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 13.16 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
Preserves / 2 to 3.5 or 3.5 to 5 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 122.42 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac and Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 95.44 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du / ac & 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 929
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2_BW ACRES: 217.86 +/-
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.50 +/- Acres)
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.19 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future ( 201.01 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 13.16 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/acre
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du
E E E E
Preserves / 2-3.5 or 3.5-5 du/acre
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 122.42 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac and Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 95.44 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area JOMAX RD
Residential 2 to 3.5 du / acre & 5 to 10 du/acre
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du
E E E E E
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 930
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per
acre, and Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned
Request To Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Use Mixture of single-family and multifamily residential (not to
exceed 250 units)
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany and Bosco, provided information about the site
and the surrounding area. He explained that the site is approximately 213 acres in total,
but the majority is hillside (approximately 130-150 acres) and will be donated to the City
of Phoenix’s Parks and Recreation Department. He explained that the areas below the
10% slope will be developed as single-family and multifamily residential. He stated that
the developable area of the site will also have open space with community amenities.
He added that the proposed development would be similar to other existing
developments in the area, such as Fireside at Norterra, Aviano by Toll Brothers, and
Fireside at Desert Ridge.
Jason Israel, asked how many units will be built on site. Bill Lally stated that the
developer anticipated a maximum of 250 units, with a target of 239 units.
Jason Israel asked if a traffic study was completed. Bill Lally stated that a traffic study
was completed and that all access points to the proposed development could
accommodate the additional traffic flow.
Chair Steven Bowser asked for clarification about impact fees. Bill Lally explained
that there are impact fees in the area, but those fees may not take into account all of the
needs in the area. He stated that the developer is working with City staff to determine
the needs of the area and how the development will help pay for those needs.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 931
Joseph Barto asked about future meetings and community involvement. Bill Lally
stated that an initial neighborhood meeting was held, but no community members
attended. He stated that there will be a second neighborhood meeting in the coming
weeks and expects increased engagement.
Rick Nowell asked for clarification regarding the acreage donated to Parks and
Recreation. Bill Lally explained that design, access, amenities, and security will be
determined by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Jill Hankins asked if Desert Peak Parkway will connect to 7th Street or Happy Valley
Road. Bill Lally explained that the Street Classification Map depicts a connection
between Pinnacle Peak Road and Happy Valley Road to the west.
Jill Hankins asked if the City has a Hillside Ordinance. Bill Lally stated that the City
does have a Hillside Ordinance, which essentially states that areas with less than a
10% slope can be developed using standard subdivision regulations. He added that
development on areas with greater than 10% slope would require a disturbance waiver.
Gary Kirkilas, a member of the community, asked if the property abuts the Sonoran
Preserve or Cave Buttes Recreation Area and whether edge treatments would be
implemented. Bill Lally stated that he would follow up to this question after determining
whether the site is directly adjacent to the preserve or recreation area.
Gary Kirkilas asked for clarification regarding the infrastructure limit line. Bill Lally
stated that when developing outside an area with existing infrastructure, a waiver would
be required, but the proposed development would not require any waivers. He added
that over the past year the developer’s engineering team determined how to bring utility
infrastructure to the site.
Michelle Butler, a community member who lives adjacent to the site, stated that the
proposed development would be directly adjacent to the North View at Stone Butte
community. She stated that the existing subdivision is gated, but people already think
that their neighborhood is part of the preserve and have faced numerous security
issues. She added that the preserve donation is positive in theory, but there would
need to be a clear separation from the existing communities. Bill Lally stated that the
proposed development would be exclusive and the proposed preserve would be a
secured public asset with limited access. He stated that there could also be signage
along Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to direct people to the appropriate
access point.
Dennis Hasenbank, a member of the Stone Butte community, stated that he was
originally interested in the area because of the lower density and open space. He
expressed concerns with higher density, higher activity, and security.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 932
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Current Plan Designation Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03 acres),
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5
dwelling units per acre (2.18 acres), Future Parks/Open
Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre (197.23 acres), Public
Parks/Open Space (12.74 acres)
Requested Plan Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre
Designation (118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre (94.56 acres)
Reason for Requested Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to allow a
Change mixture of single-family and multifamily residential
development
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
This item was heard concurrently with Item #8 – Z-46-19-2.
2 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that there are two proposals,
a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezoning request. She stated that the GPA
request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Parks / Open Space –
Publicly Owned to Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre and
Residential 2 to 3.5 and 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the rezoning
request is to rezone the property from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD). She stated that the proposal is to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development is proposing two land uses.
Approximately 95 acres of the site is below the 20% hillside slope line and will be
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 933
developed with a mix of single-family and multifamily residential, not to exceed 250
units. The remaining approximately 120 acres will be donated to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert
park. She also reviewed the permitted uses and development standards. She also
discussed how the site is within the boundaries of the North Land Use Plan and the
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan and how the PUD proposes to align with those plans.
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff findings and stipulations. She noted that GPA-
DSTV-1-18-2 did not have any stipulations and the stipulations reviewed were for Z-46-
19-2. She added that staff recommended approval for GPA-DSTV-1-18-2 and
recommended approval, subject to stipulations for Z-46-19-2. She stated that staff had
not received any community correspondence.
John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, discussed the site and conceptual
land uses. He noted that 5% of the approximately 95 acres of the site below the 20%
slope line will be utilized as common open space. He also discussed the development
standards for the single-family attached, single-family detached, and multifamily areas
of the site. He also discussed how the proposed development is similar with the
surrounding area. He stated that the site will have additional amenities including
pedestrian access to mountain preserves, ramadas with trellises, seating and gathering
areas, picnic areas, and playgrounds. He also discussed the hillside and wash edge
treatment guidelines.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that since this development is south of Jomax Road
he had no concerns with the proposed density.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there needs to be a connection to 7th
Street and asked about the plans for Jomax Road. Nguyen Lam, representative with
Hilgart Wilson, stated that there are no plans to improve the Jomax Road alignment.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there should be an additional stipulation
requiring a connection to 7th Street. John Oliver stated that the developer had
completed a traffic impact statement, which was routed to the Street Transportation
Department. Julianna Pierre stated that the Street Transportation Department
recommended a stipulation requiring the developer to complete a Traffic Impact Study
which will determine the necessary dedications and infrastructure improvements. She
added that stipulations cannot be added that tie a particular development to any larger
traffic improvements that are offsite.
Committee member Michelle Santoro expressed concerns because the land use plan
lacked detail. John Oliver stated that the developer did not have a builder, so the
standards provided were crafted to allow flexibility. He added that there is no
percentage specified for multifamily and single-family, but there will be a maximum of
250 units. He added that a minimum 120 acres of the site will be donated to the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, stated that the site is too dense with 250 units
on the developable area. He expressed concerns with the project being directly
adjacent to Sonoran Desert areas.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 934
Scott Coll, a member of the public, expressed concerns with the single point of
proposed access to the site which would impact police and fire department response
times.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave reiterated the positives of the proposed development, which
were the site adjoining other existing developments, a 120-acre donation, and the
northernmost edge of the development abutting, but not extending into the adjacent
recreation areas.
Committee member Rick Powell stated that this is the natural progression of
development and the proposal makes sense since it is adjacent to other developed
areas.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to approve GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as
presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Powell.
VOTE: 11-0 with Committee Members Bowser, Lagrave, Barto, Hankins, Kollar, Neely,
Nowell, Powell, Santoro, Warren, and Younger in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 935
Attachment E
ADDENDUM A
General Plan Amendment Staff Analysis
GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
December 21, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Current Plan Designation Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre (1.03
acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
(2.18 acres), Parks/Open Space - Future / 1
dwelling unit per acre (197.23 acres),
Parks/Open Space - Public (12.74 acres)
Requested Plan Designation Parks/Open Space - Future / 1 dwelling unit per
acre (118.62 acres), Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
(94.56 acres)
Reason for Requested Change Amend the General Plan Land Use Map to
allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential development
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation Approval
On May 4, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request as an
information only item. On December 7, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning
Committee heard this request and recommended approval by a vote of 11-0.
The purpose of this addendum is to revise an error in the acreage calculated for the
case and subsequently included in the staff report. The original acreage was incorrectly
calculated at 217.86 acres when the east side of the site boundary was aligned with a
zoning boundary further east. The amendment area has been remapped correctly to
align with the property boundary, and the revised acreage of the site is 213.18 acres.
Page 936
Addendum A to the Staff Report GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
December 21, 2021
Additionally, the acreages for the existing and requested plan designations were
corrected, as noted above. Staff is supportive of the request per the revised acreages.
Exhibits
Revised Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 937
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2 ACRES: 213.18 +/- REVISION DATE
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 12/10/2021
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.03 +/- Acres)
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.18 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 197.23 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 12.74 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
Preserves / 2 to 3.5 or 3.5 to 5 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 118.62 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac /Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 94.56 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / 5 to 10 du/ac
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 938
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2_BW ACRES: 213.18 +/- REVISION DATE
VILLAGE: Desert View COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 12/10/2021
APPLICANT: William E Lally
EXISTING:
Residential 2 to 5 ( 1.03 +/- Acres)
Preserves/Residential 2 to 3.5 / 3.5 to 5 ( 2.18 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 197.23 +/- Acres)
Parks/Open Space - Public ( 12.74 +/- Acres)
JOMAX RD
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 5 du/acre
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E
E E E E Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
E E E E
Preserves / 2-3.5 or 3.5-5 du/acre
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac ( 118.62 +/- Acres)
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac /Residential 5 to 10 du/ac ( 94.56 +/- Acres)
Proposed Change Area JOMAX RD
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac / 5 to 10 du/ac
E E E E E
E E E E E
E E E E E
Parks/Open Space - Future 1 du/ac
E E E E E
D
DAM
R
HAPPY VALLEY RD ALIGNMENT
REE
K
CAV
EC
Page 939
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 4
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-DSTV-1-19-2
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway
From: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Preserves/Residential 2 to
3.5/3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre, Parks/Open Space – Future 1
dwelling unit per acre, and Parks/Open Space - Public
To: Parks/Open Space – Future 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to
3.5/Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 213.18
Proposal: A minor General Plan Amendment to allow a mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential.
Applicant: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosca, PA
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosca, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 5/4/2021 Information only.
Desert View 12/7/2021 Approval. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, per the
Addendum A Staff Report.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gaynor
Vote: 6-2 (Perez, Bushing)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, proposes to donate a minimum of 120
acres to the Parks and Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain
Preserve or a desert park.
2. The proposal for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to 10
dwelling units per acre will allow for a mix of residential products, as proposed by the
Page 940
companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2. The proposal for Future Parks/Open Space or
one dwelling unit per acre supports the future, intended use of the land for a preserve
or desert park. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining
and preserving the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan.
3. The companion rezoning case, Z-46-19-2, incorporates development standards that
will maintain an appropriate scale and character with land uses in the surrounding
area.
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 941
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-46-19-2
(Sendero Foothills PUD) - Approximately 900 Feet North of the Northeast Corner
of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway (Ordinance G-6961)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-46-19-
2 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily residential. This
is a companion case and must be heard following GPA-DSTV-1-19-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 213.18 acres
Proposed Use: A mixture of single-family and multifamily residential uses.
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on May 4,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec. 7,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and
Desert Peak Parkway.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 942
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 943
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-46-19-2) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 213.18-acre site located approximately 900
feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
in a portion of Sections 3 and 10, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 944
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 Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey
120 acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside
land selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as
Tract A of the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix
desert park and/or mountain preserve.
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park
or mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
Page 945
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site
Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure
improvements as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior
to final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a
subdivision in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City
Code, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. Prior to 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 946
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
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 (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 947
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-46-19-2:
A portion of land being situated within Sections 3 and 10, Township 4 North, Range 3
East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap flush accepted as the Southeast corner of said
Section 3, from which a found PK nail tagged 24513 accepted as the East Quarter
corner of said Section 10 bears South 00°08’34” West, 2633.00 feet;
Thence along the east line of said Section 10, South 00°08'34" West, 200.00 feet;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°55'04" West, 2600.00 feet along a line which is
200.00 feet south of and parallel with the south line of the southeast quarter of said
Section 3;
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 00°08'34" East, 200.00 feet to the south line of
said Section 3;
Thence along said south line, North 89°55'04" West, 33.14 feet;
Thence leaving said south line, North 00°04'07" East, 2658.61 feet along the west line
of the southeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said west line, South 89°48'25" West, 175.00 feet along the north line of
the southwest quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°03'56" East, 665.96 feet along a line which is
175.00 feet west of and parallel with the west line of the East half of said Section 3;
Thence North 89°44'41" East, 175.00 feet along the south line of the north 661.12 feet
of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said south line, South 00°03'56" West, 2.51 feet, along the west line of
the East half of said Section 3,;
Thence North 89°46'41" East, 140.32 feet along the north line of the Southwest quarter
of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 50°08'45" East, 151.75 feet; Thence South
17°34'03" East, 159.41 feet;
Thence South 07°36'20" East, 186.68 feet;
Thence South 00°05'25" West, 228.80 feet;
Page 948
Thence North 89°48'20" East, 330.04 feet along the north line of southeast quarter of
said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°06'54" East, 331.98 feet along the east line of
the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°47'30" East, 330.18 feet along the north line of
the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°08'22" East, 332.06 feet along the east line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°46'41" East, 330.33 feet along the north line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°09'51" East, 332.14 feet along the east line of
the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°45'51" East, 1321.88 feet;
Thence along the east line of said Section 3, South 00°15'45" West, 332.46 feet;
Thence leaving said east line, South 89°46'41" West, 660.66 feet along the north line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°12'48" West, 332.30 feet along the west line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°47'30" East, 660.37 feet along the north line of
the south half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter
of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°15'45" West, 332.46 feet along said east line
of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3 to the east quarter corner threreof;
Thence South 00°13'20" West, 2671.37 feet along the east line of the Southesast
quarter of said Section 3 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 949
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 9,286,135 sq. ft. (213.1803
acres) more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of
record or otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions
Page 950
Page 951
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-46-19-2
Sendero Foothills PUD
December 6, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (217.86 acres)
Request To: PUD (217.86 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture
of single-family and multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5
/ Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre, Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre, Public Parks/Open
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Space
Proposed (GPA-DSTV-1-19-2): Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per
acre, Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre
Page 952
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Street Map Street access to the site will be determined prior to the
Classification development of the site.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed development creates a residential community consistent in scale, design,
and appearance to recent developments in the surrounding area. The companion case,
GPA-DSTV-19-2, will preserve the majority of the site as open space and allow for an
increase in intensity along the remaining portion of the site. Z-46-19-2, proposes to
donate a minimum of 120 acres to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department as an
addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park. The preservation of native
vegetation and protection of the character of the area is consistent with adjacent
residential developments which are in close proximity to various open and park spaces.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal will provide additional housing choices within approximately 0.85 miles of
Cave Creek Road. An increase in intensity on a portion of the site will support future
transit along Cave Creek Road and connect residents to existing and future
employment, housing, and services in the area.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of housing
types and densities where appropriate within each village that support a broad
range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and concurrent rezoning case
will allow for a mix of housing types and residential densities at the subject site. These
will be compatible in scale, design, and appearance to development in the surrounding
area. Furthermore, the diverse housing products will support a broad range of lifestyles
for Phoenix residents.
Page 953
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development proposes five-foot detached sidewalks with a five-foot landscaped
area between the back of curb and sidewalk to allow for mature trees. This will help to
minimize the urban heat island effect, improve thermal comfort, and encourage
pedestrians to walk within the development.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
North Land Use Plan: See Background Item No. 4.
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan: See Background Item No. 5.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 14.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 15.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 16.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 17.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 18.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant S-1
Cave Buttes Recreation
North S-1
Area
Cave Buttes Recreation
West S-1
Area, Cave Buttes Dam
Vacant (State Trust
East S-1
Land)
Single-Family
South R1-18
Residential
Page 954
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
REQUEST
1. This is a request to rezone
a 217.86-gross acre site
located approximately 900
feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak
Parkway from S-1 (Ranch
or Farm Residence) to Proposed
PUD (Planned Unit PUD
Development) to allow a
mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential, not
to exceed 250 units.
Zoning Sketch Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The site has General Plan Land Use Map designations of Residential 2 to 5
dwelling units per acre (1.50 acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (2.19 acres), Future Parks/Open
Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre (201.01 acres), and Public Parks/Open Space
(13.16 acres). The proposal is not consistent with these designations and, as
the site exceeds 10 acres in size, the applicant has filed a General Plan
Amendment, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as a companion case to this rezoning request.
The GPA request is for Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre
(122.42 acres) and Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to
10 dwelling units per acre (95.44 acres).
Page 955
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
EXISTING PROPOSED
+/- Acres
Existing and Proposed General Land Use Designation Maps, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
North of the northern boundary of the subject site, there are General Plan Land
Use Map designation of Public Parks/Open Space.
East of the subject site, there are General Plan Land Use Map designations of
Public Parks/Open Space, Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre,
and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
South of the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map designations are
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5
dwelling units per acre.
Page 956
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
West of the subject is designated as Public Parks/Open Space. A small portion
west of the site and part of the Hillstone North subdivision is designated
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
This PUD Development Narrative proposes single-family and multifamily uses
that vary between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the proposal is
consistent with the requested General Plan Land Use Map designation of Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The subject site is currently vacant, but used for various recreational activities
and zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence). The surrounding zoning and land
uses are as follows:
Aerial Sketch Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
NORTH
North of the northern boundary of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation
Area, a park that is overseen by the Maricopa County Flood Control District.
Page 957
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
This area contains a number of dams that control flooding from the Cave Creek
wash and adjacent tributaries. This area is zoned S-1.
EAST
East of the subject site is a portion of Cave Buttes Recreation Area and vacant
land that is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). This area is
zoned
S-1.
SOUTH
South of the subject site are single-family residential developments zoned R1-
18 and R1-6. The Hillstone North and Hillstone South subdivisions are subject
to Rezoning Case No. Z-43-02.
WEST
West of the subject sites is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area. The Cave Buttes
Dam, a dry dam to prevent flooding in north Phoenix, is also located west of the
subject site. This area is zoned S-1.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES
4. North Land Use Plan
The project site is
located within the
boundaries of the North
Land Use Plan. The
North Land Use Plan
was created in 1997 with
the purpose of
establishing growth
patterns while
preserving the desert
landscape and character
of the area. The plan
recognizes the
importance that the rural
character and lifestyle
play in determining
appropriate land use
densities. The North North Land Use Plan Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Land Use Plan Planning and Development Department
designates this site as
Residential 2 to 5
Page 958
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
dwelling units per acre. The proposed site will have a maximum of 250 units
across the 95-acre developable portion of the site to ensure compatibility with
the character of the North Land Use Plan.
The development also supports concepts in the North Land Use Plan by
preserving Cave Creek Wash’s natural flow and the surrounding desert
environment.
5. Sonoran Preserve Master Plan
Subject Site
North Study Area of the Sonoran Preserve Master Plan, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
The subject site is within the North Study Area of the Sonoran Preserve Master
Plan. The Sonoran Preserve Master Plan was approved by the City in 1998
with the goal of accommodating growth while preserving the Sonoran Desert.
The PUD supports the overall goal of the Sonoran Preserve Master Plan
through the donation of approximately 120 acres to the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department. This donation will provide recreational connectivity to
Page 959
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
the Cave Buttes Recreation Area and surrounding preserve and park properties.
The PUD will also preserve significant wash corridors and natural drainage
systems and provide various recreational opportunities.
PUD PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the Planned Unit Development zoning
district. The PUD is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
what is produced through 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.
7. Land Use Plan: The PUD proposes
two land use concepts for the entire
project site. Approximately 95 acres of
the site are below the 20 percent
hillside slope line and will be
developed with a mix of single-family
and multifamily residential, not to
exceed 250 units. The remaining
approximately 120 acres will be
donated to the Parks and Recreation
Department as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a
desert park. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 2 to ensure a minimum
of 120 acres is donated by the
landowner. The landowner will also
work with the City of Phoenix Parks
and Recreation Department regarding
access to the donated portion of the
site per Stipulation No. 3. Conceptual Land Use Plan, Source: Hilgart
Wilson
The conceptual plans included within
the Development Narrative do not
depict street connections to the subject site, thus the Street Transportation
Department is recommending Stipulation No. 4 for the developer to complete a
Traffic Impact Study and Stipulation No. 5 to ensure the development adheres
to the dedications and improvements as stipulated in the approved Traffic
Impact Statement. The Street Transportation Department also recommended
Stipulation No. 6, to ensure that the appropriate right-of-way, access,
dedications and infrastructure are provided by the developer. Additionally, the
Page 960
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
applicant is working with the Maricopa County Flood Control District on the
necessary approvals that will allow access to the site.
8. Permitted Uses: The PUD proposes to allow detatched and attached single-
family residential, multifamily residential, a residential model home complex,
sales office, and a community garden. Temporary and accessory uses are to
comply with their respective sections in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. Development Standards: The PUD sets forth several development standards
that only apply to the non-hillside areas of the PUD. All other areas of the PUD
will be subject to all Hillside Development Standards of the Zoning Ordinance,
which would override any of the PUD standards where conflicts arise.
Below is a summary of the development standards proposed in the PUD
development narrative for single-family detached, single-family attached, and
multifamily residential development, which can be found on pages 10 through
12 of the PUD Development Narrative.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
3.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
Public or Private Street (front, rear, or side): 15 feet
Minimum Perimeter (in addition to landscape setback);
Building Setbacks Property line (rear): 15 feet (1 story), 20 feet (2 story);
Property line (side): 10 feet (1 story), 15 feet (2 story)
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 10 feet
Non-Street
5 feet
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 5 feet
Page 961
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet
Height
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
3.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
20 feet adjacent to a public or private street (this area
Minimum Perimeter to be in common ownership unless lots front on the
Building Setbacks perimeter street);
15 feet adjacent to the property line
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 10 feet
Non-Street
5 feet, 0 feet for attached dwelling units
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 5 feet
Maximum Building
2 stories and 30 feet
Height
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
6.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
20 feet adjacent to a public or private street (this area
Minimum Perimeter to be in common ownership unless lots front on the
Building Setbacks perimeter street);
15 feet adjacent to the property line
Page 962
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 20 feet
Non-Street
0 feet for attached dwelling units
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 0 feet
Maximum Building
2 stories and 30 feet
Height
The proposed development standards allow for various types of residential
development, while providing enhanced perimiter building setbacks to ensure
that there are appropriate transitions from the site’s developable areas to
surrounding parcels.
10. Landscape Standards: The PUD outlines landscaping standards that exceed
the requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed landscape
standards are intended to create a robust vegetative shade cover along the
streetscapes and throughout the development. In all developable areas, a 20
foot average, 15-foot minimum landscape setback shall be established adjacent
to public and private perimeter streets. A 15-foot average, 10-foot minimum
landscape setback will be provided along all other public and private streets.
Additionally, all trees within the development will have a minimum caliper size of
two inches. Below are a summary of the proposed landscape standards.
Perimeter common landscape setbacks are addressed on pages 10 through 12
of the PUD Development Narrative and all other landscape standards can be
found on pages 12 through 15 of the PUD Development Narrative.
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
• Adjacent to public or private perimeter streets:
Perimeter common o 20-foot average and 15-foot minimum
landscape setback (does not apply to lots/units fronting onto
perimeter streets)
Page 963
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
• A landscaped setback shall be established and
maintained along all public or private street
frontages:
o 15-foot average and 10-foot minimum
• Planting Quantity:
o One tree for every 20 feet of street
Streetscape frontage
o 5 shrubs shall be planted for each tree
• Planting Size:
o Trees shall have a minimum 2 inch caliper
• Additional requirements for landscaping located
within the rights-of-way:
o Turf is prohibited
11. Design Guidelines: The PUD sets forth an extensive list of design
requirements for building architecture and design features. These standards
and design features ensure that a high-quality development is provided on site.
Standards for single-family building design include four sided architecture,
separation of identical elevations or floorplans, reduction of garage dominance
on the streetscape, varied front yard setbacks, limitation on the percentage of
stucco, and recessed or pop-out windows. Standards for multifamily building
design inlcude architectural articulation, provision of weather protection at
entrances and exits, consistent building design and character, screening of
mechanical equipment, and complementary colors and materials.
12. Amenities: The PUD proposes amenities throughout open space areas
including, but not limited to, ramadas, seating areas, picnic benches, and a
playgound. The PUD also proposes access to mountain preserves though a
pedestrian network and a maximum of three access sites to the donated portion
of the site. Additionally, a minimum of 5 percent of the developable area shall
be dedicated open space, not inclusive of the donated portion of the site.
13. Signage: Signs within the PUD will comply with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Additionally, all permanent signs with be compatible with the design
of other buildings regarding syle, materials, textures, colors, and landscape
elements. The site will also provide entry monument signs, which will include a
minimum of 150 square feet of landscaping.
CITYWIDE STUDIES AND POLICIES
14. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
Page 964
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
infrastructure to ensure trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on street frontages should be detached from
the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
proposed PUD narrative includes standards for large tree plantings along street
frontages, throughout landscape areas, pedestrian pathways, and public
sidewalks. The landscaping standards in the PUD will provide significant shade
for pedestrians and will help reduce the urban heat island effect wihin the
development and in the greater Desert View area.
15. 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 proposed PUD sets forth
standards that will improve the pedestrian environment, including detached
sidewalks, tree shade cover, and shaded pedestrian amenity areas.
16. 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 Development Narrative states that an extensive pedestrian network of
walking and bicycle paths will be available for resident use in order to create a
sustainable and inviting community. The paths will connect residents to internal
and external open space areas and will be a minimum of five feet to
accommodate pedestrians and bicycle users.
17. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The
proposed development will provide a maximum of 250 units, which will be a mix
of single-family and multifamily units. These proposed units support the
Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and contributes to a variety of housing types that will address the supply
shortage.
18. 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
Page 965
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and
mixed use developments meeting certain criteria. The Development Narrative
states that recycling collection areas will be identified on the site plan when the
site plan is submitted for site plan review.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
19. At the time the staff report was written, staff had not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. The Parks and Recreation Department provided comments pertaining to the
conveyance of 120 acres to the City of Phoenix as a desert park and/or
mountain preserve. Additionally, the 120 acre area shall have a maximum of
three access sites. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3.
21. The Street Transportation Department provided the following comments:
• The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study to the City
for the development. Additionally, the development shall adhere to the
dedications and improvements as stipulated in the Traffic Impact Study.
This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5.
• The development shall secure the necessary approvals and permits to
construct a private roadway to service the development. Additionally, the
developer shall dedicate the necessary easements for public ingress and
egress, solid waste, emergency access, and utilities. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 6.
22. The Water Services Department commented that the closest water and sewer
mains are within Jomax Road and Cave Creek Road and extensions will be
required at the time of development. The Department stated that depending on
the timing for the development, there may or may not be available sewer
capacity to serve this project. The Department noted that capacity is a dynamic
condition that can change over time due to a variety of factors and the City is
only able to provide assurance of water and sewer capacity at the time of
preliminary site plan approval.
23. The Floodplain Management Division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), as
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
division indicated that the lowest floor of all structures constructed in the SFHA
Page 966
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
shall be a minimum of one foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The
lowest adjacent grade to the structure must be a minimum of at or above the
BFE. Additionally, no basements are allowed in residential structures located in
a SFHA.
24. The Fire Department indicated that they do not anticipate any problems with the
referenced case. Additionally, site and buildings shall comply with the Phoenix
Fire Code. The current water supply is also unknown, but will be required to
meet fire flow requirements.
OTHER
25. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 7 through 9.
26. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm
water flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for
verification of required infrastructure regarding lot space and density.
27. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal action such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The proposed PUD will donate a minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve and/or a
desert park. The development includes standards to ensure appropriate
transitions from the donated area to adjacent uses.
2. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining and
preserving the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan.
Page 967
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
3. The proposal includes several development standards, such as increased tree
caliper, edge conditions, and setbacks, and design guidelines that exceed
conventional Zoning Ordinance standards.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
• Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
• Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120
acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land
selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as Tract A of
the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix desert park
and/or mountain preserve.
Page 968
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or
mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements
as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to
final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision
in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Julianna Pierre
December 6, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Page 969
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Sendero Foothills PUD date stamped November 29, 2021
Page 970
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
RD
CAVE
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CREE
FALLE
Deer Valley R1-18* N LEAF
RD
K DAM
LN
MARICOPA
Airport Overlay 23 R1-8 PRD *
District (DVAO) ANX 254
PL Z-8-04
COUNTY Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 TONE Z-8-04
Z-66-19 Z-43-02 LS
HIL
I
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2 HAPPY VALLEY RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 217.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
217.86 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 217.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 217 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 971
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
RD
CAVE
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CREE
FALLE
Deer Valley R1-18* N LEAF
RD
K DAM
LN
MARICOPA
Airport Overlay 23 R1-8 PRD *
District (DVAO) ANX 254
PL Z-8-04
COUNTY Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 TONE Z-8-04
Z-66-19 Z-43-02 LS
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
HIL
I
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2 HAPPY VALLEY RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 217.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
217.86 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 217.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 217 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 972
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-46-19-2
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Mixture of single-family and multifamily residential (not to
exceed 250 units)
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany and Bosco, provided information about the site
and the surrounding area. He explained that the site is approximately 213 acres in total,
but the majority is hillside (approximately 130-150 acres) and will be donated to the City
of Phoenix’s Parks and Recreation Department. He explained that the areas below the
10% slope will be developed as single-family and multifamily residential. He stated that
the developable area of the site will also have open space with community amenities.
He added that the proposed development would be similar to other existing
developments in the area, such as Fireside at Norterra, Aviano by Toll Brothers, and
Fireside at Desert Ridge.
Jason Israel, asked how many units will be built on site. Bill Lally stated that the
developer anticipated a maximum of 250 units, with a target of 239 units.
Jason Israel asked if a traffic study was completed. Bill Lally stated that a traffic study
was completed and that all access points to the proposed development could
accommodate the additional traffic flow.
Chair Steven Bowser asked for clarification about impact fees. Bill Lally explained
that there are impact fees in the area, but those fees may not take into account all of the
needs in the area. He stated that the developer is working with City staff to determine
the needs of the area and how the development will help pay for those needs.
Joseph Barto asked about future meetings and community involvement. Bill Lally
stated that an initial neighborhood meeting was held, but no community members
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 973
attended. He stated that there will be a second neighborhood meeting in the coming
weeks and expects increased engagement.
Rick Nowell asked for clarification regarding the acreage donated to Parks and
Recreation. Bill Lally explained that design, access, amenities, and security will be
determined by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Jill Hankins asked if Desert Peak Parkway will connect to 7th Street or Happy Valley
Road. Bill Lally explained that the Street Classification Map depicts a connection
between Pinnacle Peak Road and Happy Valley Road to the west.
Jill Hankins asked if the City has a Hillside Ordinance. Bill Lally stated that the City
does have a Hillside Ordinance, which essentially states that areas with less than a
10% slope can be developed using standard subdivision regulations. He added that
development on areas with greater than 10% slope would require a disturbance waiver.
Gary Kirkilas, a member of the community, asked if the property abuts the Sonoran
Preserve or Cave Buttes Recreation Area and whether edge treatments would be
implemented. Bill Lally stated that he would follow up to this question after determining
whether the site is directly adjacent to the preserve or recreation area.
Gary Kirkilas asked for clarification regarding the infrastructure limit line. Bill Lally
stated that when developing outside an area with existing infrastructure, a waiver would
be required, but the proposed development would not require any waivers. He added
that over the past year the developer’s engineering team determined how to bring utility
infrastructure to the site.
Michelle Butler, a community member who lives adjacent to the site, stated that the
proposed development would be directly adjacent to the North View at Stone Butte
community. She stated that the existing subdivision is gated, but people already think
that their neighborhood is part of the preserve and have faced numerous security
issues. She added that the preserve donation is positive in theory, but there would
need to be a clear separation from the existing communities. Bill Lally stated that the
proposed development would be exclusive and the proposed preserve would be a
secured public asset with limited access. He stated that there could also be signage
along Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to direct people to the appropriate
access point.
Dennis Hasenbank, a member of the Stone Butte community, stated that he was
originally interested in the area because of the lower density and open space. He
expressed concerns with higher density, higher activity, and security.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 974
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-46-19-2
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Request From S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposal To allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential.
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
This item was heard concurrently with Item #7 – GPA-DSTV-1-19-2.
2 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that there are two proposals,
a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezoning request. She stated that the GPA
request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Parks / Open Space –
Publicly Owned to Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre and
Residential 2 to 3.5 and 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the rezoning
request is to rezone the property from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD). She stated that the proposal is to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development is proposing two land uses.
Approximately 95 acres of the site is below the 20% hillside slope line and will be
developed with a mix of single-family and multifamily residential, not to exceed 250
units. The remaining approximately 120 acres will be donated to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert
park. She also reviewed the permitted uses and development standards. She also
discussed how the site is within the boundaries of the North Land Use Plan and the
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan and how the PUD proposes to align with those plans.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 975
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff findings and stipulations. She noted that GPA-
DSTV-1-18-2 did not have any stipulations and the stipulations reviewed were for Z-46-
19-2. She added that staff recommended approval for GPA-DSTV-1-18-2 and
recommended approval, subject to stipulations for Z-46-19-2. She stated that staff had
not received any community correspondence.
John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, discussed the site and conceptual
land uses. He noted that 5% of the approximately 95 acres of the site below the 20%
slope line will be utilized as common open space. He also discussed the development
standards for the single-family attached, single-family detached, and multifamily areas
of the site. He also discussed how the proposed development is similar with the
surrounding area. He stated that the site will have additional amenities including
pedestrian access to mountain preserves, ramadas with trellises, seating and gathering
areas, picnic areas, and playgrounds. He also discussed the hillside and wash edge
treatment guidelines.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that since this development is south of Jomax Road
he had no concerns with the proposed density.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there needs to be a connection to 7th
Street and asked about the plans for Jomax Road. Nguyen Lam, representative with
Hilgart Wilson, stated that there are no plans to improve the Jomax Road alignment.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there should be an additional stipulation
requiring a connection to 7th Street. John Oliver stated that the developer had
completed a traffic impact statement, which was routed to the Street Transportation
Department. Julianna Pierre stated that the Street Transportation Department
recommended a stipulation requiring the developer to complete a Traffic Impact Study
which will determine the necessary dedications and infrastructure improvements. She
added that stipulations cannot be added that tie a particular development to any larger
traffic improvements that are offsite.
Committee member Michelle Santoro expressed concerns because the land use plan
lacked detail. John Oliver stated that the developer did not have a builder, so the
standards provided were crafted to allow flexibility. He added that there is no
percentage specified for multifamily and single-family, but there will be a maximum of
250 units. He added that a minimum 120 acres of the site will be donated to the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, stated that the site is too dense with 250 units
on the developable area. He expressed concerns with the project being directly
adjacent to Sonoran Desert areas.
Scott Coll, a member of the public, expressed concerns with the single point of
proposed access to the site which would impact police and fire department response
times.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave reiterated the positives of the proposed development, which
were the site adjoining other existing developments, a 120-acre donation, and the
northernmost edge of the development abutting, but not extending into the adjacent
recreation areas.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 976
Committee member Rick Powell stated that this is the natural progression of
development and the proposal makes sense since it is adjacent to other developed
areas.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to approve Z-46-19-2, as
presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Powell.
VOTE: 11-0 with Committee Members Bowser, Lagrave, Barto, Hankins, Kollar, Neely,
Nowell, Powell, Santoro, Warren, and Younger in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 977
Attachment E
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (213.18 acres)
Request To: PUD (213.18 acres)
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture of
single-family and multifamily residential
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
The purpose of this addendum is to revise an error in the acreage calculated for the
case and subsequently included in the staff report. The original acreage was incorrectly
calculated at 217.86 acres when the east side of the site boundary was aligned with a
zoning boundary further east. The amendment area has been remapped correctly to
align with the property boundary, and the revised acreage of the site is 213.18 acres.
Due to this change, staff recommends a modification to Stipulation 1.b, regarding the
acreage in the updated development narrative.
On May 4, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request as an
information only item. On December 7, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning
Committee heard this request and recommended approval by a vote of 11 to 0.
Staff recommends approval per the following revised stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
Page 978
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
• Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
• Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120
acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land
selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as Tract A of
the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix desert park
and/or mountain preserve.
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or
mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements
as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to
final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision
Page 979
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Exhibits
Revised Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 980
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
M RD
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CAVE
FALLE
CREE
N
Deer Valley R1-18* LEAF
LN
K DA
23 R
Airport Overlay R1-8 PRD *
MARICOPA District (DVAO) ANX 254 D
Z-8-04
Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
PL
COUNTY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 ONE Z-8-04
T
Z-66-19 LS
Z-43-02 HIL
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE M OUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 213.18 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
12/9/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
213.18 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 213.18 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 213 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 981
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
M RD
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CAVE
FALLE
CREE
N
Deer Valley R1-18* LEAF
LN
K DA
23 R
Airport Overlay R1-8 PRD *
MARICOPA District (DVAO) ANX 254 D
Z-8-04
Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
PL
COUNTY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 ONE Z-8-04
T
Z-66-19 LS
Z-43-02 HIL
Ma ric o pa C ou n ty A ss es so r's O ffi ce
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE M OUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 213.18 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
12/9/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
213.18 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 213.18 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 213 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 982
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-46-19-2 (Sendero Foothills PUD)
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway
From: S-1
To: PUD
Acreage: 213.18
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential.
Applicant: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Reports.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 5/4/2021 Information only.
Desert View 12/7/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with an
additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-46-19-2, per the
Addendum A Staff Report, with the additional stipulation as read into the record.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed PUD will donate a minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and Recreation
Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve and/or a desert park.
The development includes standards to ensure appropriate transitions from the
donated area to adjacent uses.
2. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining and preserving
the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and Sonoran Preserve
Master Plan.
Page 983
3. The proposal includes several development standards, such as increased tree caliper,
edge conditions, and setbacks, and design guidelines that exceed conventional Zoning
Ordinance standards.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under the
second paragraph:
x Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
x Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent with the
live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j. Walkways
and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to accommodate both
pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120 acres
(or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land selected by the
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department
to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or mountain preserve
area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access sites shall be located in
mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix and the landowner and must be
identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site plan
approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements as
stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
Page 984
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with proof of
legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to final plat
approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision in accordance
to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing
and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. PRIOR TO 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 985
Report
(Sendero Foothills PUD) - Approximately 900 Feet North of the Northeast Corner
of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway (Ordinance G-6961)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-46-19-
2 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily residential. This
is a companion case and must be heard following GPA-DSTV-1-19-2.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 213.18 acres
Proposed Use: A mixture of single-family and multifamily residential uses.
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on May 4,
2021 for information only.
VPC Action: The Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this case on Dec. 7,
2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Jan. 6, 2022 and
recommended approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report, with an additional
stipulation, by a vote of 6-2.
Location
Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and
Desert Peak Parkway.
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: N/A
Page 942
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 943
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-46-19-2) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM RESIDENCE
DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 213.18-acre site located approximately 900
feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
in a portion of Sections 3 and 10, Township 4 North, Range 3 East, as described more
specifically in Exhibit “A”, is hereby changed from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) to “PUD” (Planned Unit Development).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B”.
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 944
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 Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey
120 acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside
land selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as
Tract A of the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix
desert park and/or mountain preserve.
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park
or mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
Page 945
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site
Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure
improvements as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior
to final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a
subdivision in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City
Code, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. Prior to 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 946
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
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 (3 Pages)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 947
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-46-19-2:
A portion of land being situated within Sections 3 and 10, Township 4 North, Range 3
East of the Gila and Salt River Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona, being more
particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING at a found brass cap flush accepted as the Southeast corner of said
Section 3, from which a found PK nail tagged 24513 accepted as the East Quarter
corner of said Section 10 bears South 00°08’34” West, 2633.00 feet;
Thence along the east line of said Section 10, South 00°08'34" West, 200.00 feet;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°55'04" West, 2600.00 feet along a line which is
200.00 feet south of and parallel with the south line of the southeast quarter of said
Section 3;
Thence leaving said parallel line, North 00°08'34" East, 200.00 feet to the south line of
said Section 3;
Thence along said south line, North 89°55'04" West, 33.14 feet;
Thence leaving said south line, North 00°04'07" East, 2658.61 feet along the west line
of the southeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said west line, South 89°48'25" West, 175.00 feet along the north line of
the southwest quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°03'56" East, 665.96 feet along a line which is
175.00 feet west of and parallel with the west line of the East half of said Section 3;
Thence North 89°44'41" East, 175.00 feet along the south line of the north 661.12 feet
of the Southeast quarter of the Northwest quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said south line, South 00°03'56" West, 2.51 feet, along the west line of
the East half of said Section 3,;
Thence North 89°46'41" East, 140.32 feet along the north line of the Southwest quarter
of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 50°08'45" East, 151.75 feet; Thence South
17°34'03" East, 159.41 feet;
Thence South 07°36'20" East, 186.68 feet;
Thence South 00°05'25" West, 228.80 feet;
Page 948
Thence North 89°48'20" East, 330.04 feet along the north line of southeast quarter of
said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°06'54" East, 331.98 feet along the east line of
the southwest quarter of the southwest quarter of the northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°47'30" East, 330.18 feet along the north line of
the Southwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°08'22" East, 332.06 feet along the east line of
the Northwest quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°46'41" East, 330.33 feet along the north line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said north line, North 00°09'51" East, 332.14 feet along the east line of
the Southwest quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said east line, North 89°45'51" East, 1321.88 feet;
Thence along the east line of said Section 3, South 00°15'45" West, 332.46 feet;
Thence leaving said east line, South 89°46'41" West, 660.66 feet along the north line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°12'48" West, 332.30 feet along the west line of
the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of said Section
3;
Thence leaving said west line, North 89°47'30" East, 660.37 feet along the north line of
the south half of the Southeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter
of said Section 3;
Thence leaving said north line, South 00°15'45" West, 332.46 feet along said east line
of the Northeast quarter of said Section 3 to the east quarter corner threreof;
Thence South 00°13'20" West, 2671.37 feet along the east line of the Southesast
quarter of said Section 3 to the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Page 949
The above described parcel contains a computed area of 9,286,135 sq. ft. (213.1803
acres) more or less and being subject to any easements, restrictions, rights-of-way of
record or otherwise.
The description shown hereon is not to be used to violate any subdivision regulation of
the state, county and/or municipality or any land division restrictions
Page 950
Page 951
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-46-19-2
Sendero Foothills PUD
December 6, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (217.86 acres)
Request To: PUD (217.86 acres)
Proposed Use: Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture
of single-family and multifamily residential
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units
per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5
/ Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre, Future Parks/Open Space or 1
dwelling unit per acre, Public Parks/Open
General Plan Land Use Map Designation Space
Proposed (GPA-DSTV-1-19-2): Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per
acre, Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 5
to 10 dwelling units per acre
Page 952
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Street Map Street access to the site will be determined prior to the
Classification development of the site.
CONNECT PEOPLE & PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposed development creates a residential community consistent in scale, design,
and appearance to recent developments in the surrounding area. The companion case,
GPA-DSTV-19-2, will preserve the majority of the site as open space and allow for an
increase in intensity along the remaining portion of the site. Z-46-19-2, proposes to
donate a minimum of 120 acres to the City’s Parks and Recreation Department as an
addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert park. The preservation of native
vegetation and protection of the character of the area is consistent with adjacent
residential developments which are in close proximity to various open and park spaces.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal will provide additional housing choices within approximately 0.85 miles of
Cave Creek Road. An increase in intensity on a portion of the site will support future
transit along Cave Creek Road and connect residents to existing and future
employment, housing, and services in the area.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of housing
types and densities where appropriate within each village that support a broad
range of lifestyles.
The proposed General Plan Land Use Map amendment and concurrent rezoning case
will allow for a mix of housing types and residential densities at the subject site. These
will be compatible in scale, design, and appearance to development in the surrounding
area. Furthermore, the diverse housing products will support a broad range of lifestyles
for Phoenix residents.
Page 953
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES & SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The development proposes five-foot detached sidewalks with a five-foot landscaped
area between the back of curb and sidewalk to allow for mature trees. This will help to
minimize the urban heat island effect, improve thermal comfort, and encourage
pedestrians to walk within the development.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
North Land Use Plan: See Background Item No. 4.
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan: See Background Item No. 5.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 14.
Complete Streets Guiding Principles: See Background Item No. 15.
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: See Background Item No. 16.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 17.
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 18.
Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant S-1
Cave Buttes Recreation
North S-1
Area
Cave Buttes Recreation
West S-1
Area, Cave Buttes Dam
Vacant (State Trust
East S-1
Land)
Single-Family
South R1-18
Residential
Page 954
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Background/Issues/Analysis
REQUEST
1. This is a request to rezone
a 217.86-gross acre site
located approximately 900
feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak
Parkway from S-1 (Ranch
or Farm Residence) to Proposed
PUD (Planned Unit PUD
Development) to allow a
mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential, not
to exceed 250 units.
Zoning Sketch Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
2. The site has General Plan Land Use Map designations of Residential 2 to 5
dwelling units per acre (1.50 acres), Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 /
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre (2.19 acres), Future Parks/Open
Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre (201.01 acres), and Public Parks/Open Space
(13.16 acres). The proposal is not consistent with these designations and, as
the site exceeds 10 acres in size, the applicant has filed a General Plan
Amendment, GPA-DSTV-1-19-2, as a companion case to this rezoning request.
The GPA request is for Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre
(122.42 acres) and Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre / Residential 5 to
10 dwelling units per acre (95.44 acres).
Page 955
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
EXISTING PROPOSED
+/- Acres
Existing and Proposed General Land Use Designation Maps, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
North of the northern boundary of the subject site, there are General Plan Land
Use Map designation of Public Parks/Open Space.
East of the subject site, there are General Plan Land Use Map designations of
Public Parks/Open Space, Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre,
and Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
South of the subject site, the General Plan Land Use Map designations are
Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 / Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Future Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Residential 2 to 5
dwelling units per acre.
Page 956
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
West of the subject is designated as Public Parks/Open Space. A small portion
west of the site and part of the Hillstone North subdivision is designated
Residential 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
This PUD Development Narrative proposes single-family and multifamily uses
that vary between 3 and 6 dwelling units per acre. Thus, the proposal is
consistent with the requested General Plan Land Use Map designation of Future
Parks/Open Space or 1 dwelling unit per acre and Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre / Residential 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The subject site is currently vacant, but used for various recreational activities
and zoned S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence). The surrounding zoning and land
uses are as follows:
Aerial Sketch Map, Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
NORTH
North of the northern boundary of the subject site is the Cave Buttes Recreation
Area, a park that is overseen by the Maricopa County Flood Control District.
Page 957
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
This area contains a number of dams that control flooding from the Cave Creek
wash and adjacent tributaries. This area is zoned S-1.
EAST
East of the subject site is a portion of Cave Buttes Recreation Area and vacant
land that is owned by the Arizona State Land Department (AZSLD). This area is
zoned
S-1.
SOUTH
South of the subject site are single-family residential developments zoned R1-
18 and R1-6. The Hillstone North and Hillstone South subdivisions are subject
to Rezoning Case No. Z-43-02.
WEST
West of the subject sites is the Cave Buttes Recreation Area. The Cave Buttes
Dam, a dry dam to prevent flooding in north Phoenix, is also located west of the
subject site. This area is zoned S-1.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAYS, AND INITATIVES
4. North Land Use Plan
The project site is
located within the
boundaries of the North
Land Use Plan. The
North Land Use Plan
was created in 1997 with
the purpose of
establishing growth
patterns while
preserving the desert
landscape and character
of the area. The plan
recognizes the
importance that the rural
character and lifestyle
play in determining
appropriate land use
densities. The North North Land Use Plan Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Land Use Plan Planning and Development Department
designates this site as
Residential 2 to 5
Page 958
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
dwelling units per acre. The proposed site will have a maximum of 250 units
across the 95-acre developable portion of the site to ensure compatibility with
the character of the North Land Use Plan.
The development also supports concepts in the North Land Use Plan by
preserving Cave Creek Wash’s natural flow and the surrounding desert
environment.
5. Sonoran Preserve Master Plan
Subject Site
North Study Area of the Sonoran Preserve Master Plan, Source: City of Phoenix
Planning and Development Department
The subject site is within the North Study Area of the Sonoran Preserve Master
Plan. The Sonoran Preserve Master Plan was approved by the City in 1998
with the goal of accommodating growth while preserving the Sonoran Desert.
The PUD supports the overall goal of the Sonoran Preserve Master Plan
through the donation of approximately 120 acres to the City’s Parks and
Recreation Department. This donation will provide recreational connectivity to
Page 959
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
the Cave Buttes Recreation Area and surrounding preserve and park properties.
The PUD will also preserve significant wash corridors and natural drainage
systems and provide various recreational opportunities.
PUD PROPOSAL
6. The proposal was developed utilizing the Planned Unit Development zoning
district. The PUD is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
what is produced through 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.
7. Land Use Plan: The PUD proposes
two land use concepts for the entire
project site. Approximately 95 acres of
the site are below the 20 percent
hillside slope line and will be
developed with a mix of single-family
and multifamily residential, not to
exceed 250 units. The remaining
approximately 120 acres will be
donated to the Parks and Recreation
Department as an addition to the
Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a
desert park. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 2 to ensure a minimum
of 120 acres is donated by the
landowner. The landowner will also
work with the City of Phoenix Parks
and Recreation Department regarding
access to the donated portion of the
site per Stipulation No. 3. Conceptual Land Use Plan, Source: Hilgart
Wilson
The conceptual plans included within
the Development Narrative do not
depict street connections to the subject site, thus the Street Transportation
Department is recommending Stipulation No. 4 for the developer to complete a
Traffic Impact Study and Stipulation No. 5 to ensure the development adheres
to the dedications and improvements as stipulated in the approved Traffic
Impact Statement. The Street Transportation Department also recommended
Stipulation No. 6, to ensure that the appropriate right-of-way, access,
dedications and infrastructure are provided by the developer. Additionally, the
Page 960
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
applicant is working with the Maricopa County Flood Control District on the
necessary approvals that will allow access to the site.
8. Permitted Uses: The PUD proposes to allow detatched and attached single-
family residential, multifamily residential, a residential model home complex,
sales office, and a community garden. Temporary and accessory uses are to
comply with their respective sections in the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.
9. Development Standards: The PUD sets forth several development standards
that only apply to the non-hillside areas of the PUD. All other areas of the PUD
will be subject to all Hillside Development Standards of the Zoning Ordinance,
which would override any of the PUD standards where conflicts arise.
Below is a summary of the development standards proposed in the PUD
development narrative for single-family detached, single-family attached, and
multifamily residential development, which can be found on pages 10 through
12 of the PUD Development Narrative.
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
3.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
Public or Private Street (front, rear, or side): 15 feet
Minimum Perimeter (in addition to landscape setback);
Building Setbacks Property line (rear): 15 feet (1 story), 20 feet (2 story);
Property line (side): 10 feet (1 story), 15 feet (2 story)
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 10 feet
Non-Street
5 feet
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 5 feet
Page 961
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Maximum Building 2 stories and 30 feet
Height
SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
3.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
20 feet adjacent to a public or private street (this area
Minimum Perimeter to be in common ownership unless lots front on the
Building Setbacks perimeter street);
15 feet adjacent to the property line
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 10 feet
Non-Street
5 feet, 0 feet for attached dwelling units
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 5 feet
Maximum Building
2 stories and 30 feet
Height
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
Dwelling Unit Density
6.0 dwelling units per acre
(Maximum)
20 feet adjacent to a public or private street (this area
Minimum Perimeter to be in common ownership unless lots front on the
Building Setbacks perimeter street);
15 feet adjacent to the property line
Page 962
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Minimum Building
Setback adjacent to
future and 50 feet
existing/dedicated
preserve areas
Interior Building Setbacks (Minimum)
Front 20 feet
Non-Street
0 feet for attached dwelling units
Side
Street Side 10 feet
Rear 0 feet
Maximum Building
2 stories and 30 feet
Height
The proposed development standards allow for various types of residential
development, while providing enhanced perimiter building setbacks to ensure
that there are appropriate transitions from the site’s developable areas to
surrounding parcels.
10. Landscape Standards: The PUD outlines landscaping standards that exceed
the requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed landscape
standards are intended to create a robust vegetative shade cover along the
streetscapes and throughout the development. In all developable areas, a 20
foot average, 15-foot minimum landscape setback shall be established adjacent
to public and private perimeter streets. A 15-foot average, 10-foot minimum
landscape setback will be provided along all other public and private streets.
Additionally, all trees within the development will have a minimum caliper size of
two inches. Below are a summary of the proposed landscape standards.
Perimeter common landscape setbacks are addressed on pages 10 through 12
of the PUD Development Narrative and all other landscape standards can be
found on pages 12 through 15 of the PUD Development Narrative.
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS
PUD STANDARD
• Adjacent to public or private perimeter streets:
Perimeter common o 20-foot average and 15-foot minimum
landscape setback (does not apply to lots/units fronting onto
perimeter streets)
Page 963
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
• A landscaped setback shall be established and
maintained along all public or private street
frontages:
o 15-foot average and 10-foot minimum
• Planting Quantity:
o One tree for every 20 feet of street
Streetscape frontage
o 5 shrubs shall be planted for each tree
• Planting Size:
o Trees shall have a minimum 2 inch caliper
• Additional requirements for landscaping located
within the rights-of-way:
o Turf is prohibited
11. Design Guidelines: The PUD sets forth an extensive list of design
requirements for building architecture and design features. These standards
and design features ensure that a high-quality development is provided on site.
Standards for single-family building design include four sided architecture,
separation of identical elevations or floorplans, reduction of garage dominance
on the streetscape, varied front yard setbacks, limitation on the percentage of
stucco, and recessed or pop-out windows. Standards for multifamily building
design inlcude architectural articulation, provision of weather protection at
entrances and exits, consistent building design and character, screening of
mechanical equipment, and complementary colors and materials.
12. Amenities: The PUD proposes amenities throughout open space areas
including, but not limited to, ramadas, seating areas, picnic benches, and a
playgound. The PUD also proposes access to mountain preserves though a
pedestrian network and a maximum of three access sites to the donated portion
of the site. Additionally, a minimum of 5 percent of the developable area shall
be dedicated open space, not inclusive of the donated portion of the site.
13. Signage: Signs within the PUD will comply with Section 705 of the Zoning
Ordinance. Additionally, all permanent signs with be compatible with the design
of other buildings regarding syle, materials, textures, colors, and landscape
elements. The site will also provide entry monument signs, which will include a
minimum of 150 square feet of landscaping.
CITYWIDE STUDIES AND POLICIES
14. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
Page 964
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
infrastructure to ensure trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on street frontages should be detached from
the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide
thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. The
proposed PUD narrative includes standards for large tree plantings along street
frontages, throughout landscape areas, pedestrian pathways, and public
sidewalks. The landscaping standards in the PUD will provide significant shade
for pedestrians and will help reduce the urban heat island effect wihin the
development and in the greater Desert View area.
15. 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 proposed PUD sets forth
standards that will improve the pedestrian environment, including detached
sidewalks, tree shade cover, and shaded pedestrian amenity areas.
16. 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 Development Narrative states that an extensive pedestrian network of
walking and bicycle paths will be available for resident use in order to create a
sustainable and inviting community. The paths will connect residents to internal
and external open space areas and will be a minimum of five feet to
accommodate pedestrians and bicycle users.
17. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan.
This plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of
housing with a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through
increased housing options for residents at all income levels and family sizes.
Phoenix’s rapid population growth and housing underproduction has led to a
need for over 163,000 new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply
relative to demand are a primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The
proposed development will provide a maximum of 250 units, which will be a mix
of single-family and multifamily units. These proposed units support the
Housing Phoenix Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by
2030 and contributes to a variety of housing types that will address the supply
shortage.
18. 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
Page 965
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Environmental Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this
is to improve and expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs.
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to
encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily, commercial, and
mixed use developments meeting certain criteria. The Development Narrative
states that recycling collection areas will be identified on the site plan when the
site plan is submitted for site plan review.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
19. At the time the staff report was written, staff had not received any community
correspondence regarding this request.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
20. The Parks and Recreation Department provided comments pertaining to the
conveyance of 120 acres to the City of Phoenix as a desert park and/or
mountain preserve. Additionally, the 120 acre area shall have a maximum of
three access sites. This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2 and 3.
21. The Street Transportation Department provided the following comments:
• The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study to the City
for the development. Additionally, the development shall adhere to the
dedications and improvements as stipulated in the Traffic Impact Study.
This is addressed in Stipulation Nos. 4 and 5.
• The development shall secure the necessary approvals and permits to
construct a private roadway to service the development. Additionally, the
developer shall dedicate the necessary easements for public ingress and
egress, solid waste, emergency access, and utilities. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 6.
22. The Water Services Department commented that the closest water and sewer
mains are within Jomax Road and Cave Creek Road and extensions will be
required at the time of development. The Department stated that depending on
the timing for the development, there may or may not be available sewer
capacity to serve this project. The Department noted that capacity is a dynamic
condition that can change over time due to a variety of factors and the City is
only able to provide assurance of water and sewer capacity at the time of
preliminary site plan approval.
23. The Floodplain Management Division of the Public Works Department has
indicated that the parcel is located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), as
designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
division indicated that the lowest floor of all structures constructed in the SFHA
Page 966
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
shall be a minimum of one foot above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). The
lowest adjacent grade to the structure must be a minimum of at or above the
BFE. Additionally, no basements are allowed in residential structures located in
a SFHA.
24. The Fire Department indicated that they do not anticipate any problems with the
referenced case. Additionally, site and buildings shall comply with the Phoenix
Fire Code. The current water supply is also unknown, but will be required to
meet fire flow requirements.
OTHER
25. The site is located in a larger area identified as being archaeologically sensitive.
If further review by the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office determines the site
and immediate area to be archaeologically sensitive, and if no previous
archaeological projects have been conducted within this project area, it is
recommended that archaeological Phase I data testing of this area be
conducted. Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations may be
necessary based upon the results of the testing. A qualified archaeologist must
make this determination in consultation with the City of Phoenix Archaeologist.
In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 7 through 9.
26. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm
water flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for
verification of required infrastructure regarding lot space and density.
27. Development and use of the site are subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements.
Other formal action such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and
abandonments, may be required.
Findings
1. The proposed PUD will donate a minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve and/or a
desert park. The development includes standards to ensure appropriate
transitions from the donated area to adjacent uses.
2. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining and
preserving the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan.
Page 967
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
3. The proposal includes several development standards, such as increased tree
caliper, edge conditions, and setbacks, and design guidelines that exceed
conventional Zoning Ordinance standards.
Stipulations
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
• Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
• Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120
acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land
selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as Tract A of
the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix desert park
and/or mountain preserve.
Page 968
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or
mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements
as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to
final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision
in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Julianna Pierre
December 6, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Page 969
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 6, 2021
Sendero Foothills PUD date stamped November 29, 2021
Page 970
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
RD
CAVE
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CREE
FALLE
Deer Valley R1-18* N LEAF
RD
K DAM
LN
MARICOPA
Airport Overlay 23 R1-8 PRD *
District (DVAO) ANX 254
PL Z-8-04
COUNTY Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 TONE Z-8-04
Z-66-19 Z-43-02 LS
HIL
I
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2 HAPPY VALLEY RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 217.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
217.86 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 217.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 217 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 971
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
RD
CAVE
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CREE
FALLE
Deer Valley R1-18* N LEAF
RD
K DAM
LN
MARICOPA
Airport Overlay 23 R1-8 PRD *
District (DVAO) ANX 254
PL Z-8-04
COUNTY Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 TONE Z-8-04
Z-66-19 Z-43-02 LS
Maricopa County Assessor's Office
HIL
I
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE MOUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2 HAPPY VALLEY RD
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 217.86 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
217.86 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 217.86 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 217 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 972
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-46-19-2
(INFORMATION ONLY)
Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Mixture of single-family and multifamily residential (not to
exceed 250 units)
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC DISCUSSION:
3 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany and Bosco, provided information about the site
and the surrounding area. He explained that the site is approximately 213 acres in total,
but the majority is hillside (approximately 130-150 acres) and will be donated to the City
of Phoenix’s Parks and Recreation Department. He explained that the areas below the
10% slope will be developed as single-family and multifamily residential. He stated that
the developable area of the site will also have open space with community amenities.
He added that the proposed development would be similar to other existing
developments in the area, such as Fireside at Norterra, Aviano by Toll Brothers, and
Fireside at Desert Ridge.
Jason Israel, asked how many units will be built on site. Bill Lally stated that the
developer anticipated a maximum of 250 units, with a target of 239 units.
Jason Israel asked if a traffic study was completed. Bill Lally stated that a traffic study
was completed and that all access points to the proposed development could
accommodate the additional traffic flow.
Chair Steven Bowser asked for clarification about impact fees. Bill Lally explained
that there are impact fees in the area, but those fees may not take into account all of the
needs in the area. He stated that the developer is working with City staff to determine
the needs of the area and how the development will help pay for those needs.
Joseph Barto asked about future meetings and community involvement. Bill Lally
stated that an initial neighborhood meeting was held, but no community members
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 973
attended. He stated that there will be a second neighborhood meeting in the coming
weeks and expects increased engagement.
Rick Nowell asked for clarification regarding the acreage donated to Parks and
Recreation. Bill Lally explained that design, access, amenities, and security will be
determined by the Parks and Recreation Department.
Jill Hankins asked if Desert Peak Parkway will connect to 7th Street or Happy Valley
Road. Bill Lally explained that the Street Classification Map depicts a connection
between Pinnacle Peak Road and Happy Valley Road to the west.
Jill Hankins asked if the City has a Hillside Ordinance. Bill Lally stated that the City
does have a Hillside Ordinance, which essentially states that areas with less than a
10% slope can be developed using standard subdivision regulations. He added that
development on areas with greater than 10% slope would require a disturbance waiver.
Gary Kirkilas, a member of the community, asked if the property abuts the Sonoran
Preserve or Cave Buttes Recreation Area and whether edge treatments would be
implemented. Bill Lally stated that he would follow up to this question after determining
whether the site is directly adjacent to the preserve or recreation area.
Gary Kirkilas asked for clarification regarding the infrastructure limit line. Bill Lally
stated that when developing outside an area with existing infrastructure, a waiver would
be required, but the proposed development would not require any waivers. He added
that over the past year the developer’s engineering team determined how to bring utility
infrastructure to the site.
Michelle Butler, a community member who lives adjacent to the site, stated that the
proposed development would be directly adjacent to the North View at Stone Butte
community. She stated that the existing subdivision is gated, but people already think
that their neighborhood is part of the preserve and have faced numerous security
issues. She added that the preserve donation is positive in theory, but there would
need to be a clear separation from the existing communities. Bill Lally stated that the
proposed development would be exclusive and the proposed preserve would be a
secured public asset with limited access. He stated that there could also be signage
along Cave Creek Road and Desert Peak Parkway to direct people to the appropriate
access point.
Dennis Hasenbank, a member of the Stone Butte community, stated that he was
originally interested in the area because of the lower density and open space. He
expressed concerns with higher density, higher activity, and security.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff has no comments.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 974
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-46-19-2
Date of VPC Meeting December 7, 2021
Request From S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposal To allow a mixture of single-family and multifamily
residential.
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of
Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert Peak Parkway
VPC Recommendation Approval
VPC Vote 11-0
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
This item was heard concurrently with Item #7 – GPA-DSTV-1-19-2.
2 persons indicated that they wished to speak.
Julianna Pierre provided information regarding the location of the site, surrounding
zoning, and general plan land use designation. She stated that there are two proposals,
a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and rezoning request. She stated that the GPA
request is to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Residential 2 to 5 dwelling
units per acre, Preserves / Residential 2 to 3.5 and 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre,
Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre, and Parks / Open Space –
Publicly Owned to Parks / Open Space – Future or 1 dwelling unit per acre and
Residential 2 to 3.5 and 5 to 10 dwelling units per acre. She stated that the rezoning
request is to rezone the property from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence) to Planned Unit
Development (PUD). She stated that the proposal is to allow a mixture of single-family
and multifamily residential.
Julianna Pierre stated that the development is proposing two land uses.
Approximately 95 acres of the site is below the 20% hillside slope line and will be
developed with a mix of single-family and multifamily residential, not to exceed 250
units. The remaining approximately 120 acres will be donated to the Parks and
Recreation Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve or a desert
park. She also reviewed the permitted uses and development standards. She also
discussed how the site is within the boundaries of the North Land Use Plan and the
Sonoran Preserve Master Plan and how the PUD proposes to align with those plans.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 975
Julianna Pierre reviewed the staff findings and stipulations. She noted that GPA-
DSTV-1-18-2 did not have any stipulations and the stipulations reviewed were for Z-46-
19-2. She added that staff recommended approval for GPA-DSTV-1-18-2 and
recommended approval, subject to stipulations for Z-46-19-2. She stated that staff had
not received any community correspondence.
John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, discussed the site and conceptual
land uses. He noted that 5% of the approximately 95 acres of the site below the 20%
slope line will be utilized as common open space. He also discussed the development
standards for the single-family attached, single-family detached, and multifamily areas
of the site. He also discussed how the proposed development is similar with the
surrounding area. He stated that the site will have additional amenities including
pedestrian access to mountain preserves, ramadas with trellises, seating and gathering
areas, picnic areas, and playgrounds. He also discussed the hillside and wash edge
treatment guidelines.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave stated that since this development is south of Jomax Road
he had no concerns with the proposed density.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there needs to be a connection to 7th
Street and asked about the plans for Jomax Road. Nguyen Lam, representative with
Hilgart Wilson, stated that there are no plans to improve the Jomax Road alignment.
Committee member Jill Hankins stated that there should be an additional stipulation
requiring a connection to 7th Street. John Oliver stated that the developer had
completed a traffic impact statement, which was routed to the Street Transportation
Department. Julianna Pierre stated that the Street Transportation Department
recommended a stipulation requiring the developer to complete a Traffic Impact Study
which will determine the necessary dedications and infrastructure improvements. She
added that stipulations cannot be added that tie a particular development to any larger
traffic improvements that are offsite.
Committee member Michelle Santoro expressed concerns because the land use plan
lacked detail. John Oliver stated that the developer did not have a builder, so the
standards provided were crafted to allow flexibility. He added that there is no
percentage specified for multifamily and single-family, but there will be a maximum of
250 units. He added that a minimum 120 acres of the site will be donated to the City’s
Parks and Recreation Department.
Bob Thompson, a member of the public, stated that the site is too dense with 250 units
on the developable area. He expressed concerns with the project being directly
adjacent to Sonoran Desert areas.
Scott Coll, a member of the public, expressed concerns with the single point of
proposed access to the site which would impact police and fire department response
times.
Vice Chair Louis Lagrave reiterated the positives of the proposed development, which
were the site adjoining other existing developments, a 120-acre donation, and the
northernmost edge of the development abutting, but not extending into the adjacent
recreation areas.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 976
Committee member Rick Powell stated that this is the natural progression of
development and the proposal makes sense since it is adjacent to other developed
areas.
MOTION: Vice Chair Louis Lagrave made a motion to approve Z-46-19-2, as
presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Committee member Rick Powell.
VOTE: 11-0 with Committee Members Bowser, Lagrave, Barto, Hankins, Kollar, Neely,
Nowell, Powell, Santoro, Warren, and Younger in favor.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 977
Attachment E
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
Desert View Village Planning December 7, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (213.18 acres)
Request To: PUD (213.18 acres)
Proposed Use Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture of
single-family and multifamily residential
Location Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast
corner of Cave Creek Dam Road and Desert
Peak Parkway
Owner 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Applicant 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative William E Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations
The purpose of this addendum is to revise an error in the acreage calculated for the
case and subsequently included in the staff report. The original acreage was incorrectly
calculated at 217.86 acres when the east side of the site boundary was aligned with a
zoning boundary further east. The amendment area has been remapped correctly to
align with the property boundary, and the revised acreage of the site is 213.18 acres.
Due to this change, staff recommends a modification to Stipulation 1.b, regarding the
acreage in the updated development narrative.
On May 4, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning Committee heard this request as an
information only item. On December 7, 2021, the Desert View Village Planning
Committee heard this request and recommended approval by a vote of 11 to 0.
Staff recommends approval per the following revised stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
Page 978
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as
follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under
the second paragraph:
• Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
• Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent
with the live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily
development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j.
Walkways and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to
accommodate both pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120
acres (or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land
selected by the City of Phoenix and located in the area as depicted as Tract A of
the final plat, to the City of Phoenix for use as a City of Phoenix desert park
and/or mountain preserve.
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation
Department to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or
mountain preserve area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access
sites shall be located in mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix
and the landowner and must be identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site
plan approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the
Street Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements
as stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with
proof of legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to
final plat approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision
Page 979
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-46-19-2
December 21, 2021
in accordance to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to
clearing and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the
Phase I data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified
archaeologist, determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the
applicant shall conduct Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
Exhibits
Revised Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 980
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
M RD
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CAVE
FALLE
CREE
N
Deer Valley R1-18* LEAF
LN
K DA
23 R
Airport Overlay R1-8 PRD *
MARICOPA District (DVAO) ANX 254 D
Z-8-04
Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
PL
COUNTY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 ONE Z-8-04
T
Z-66-19 LS
Z-43-02 HIL
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE M OUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 213.18 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
12/9/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
213.18 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 213.18 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 213 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 981
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
S-1
ANX 149 RE-35
JOMAX RD
S-1*
ANX 254
Z-43-02
S-1
M RD
HAPPY VALLEY ROAD ALIGNMENT
CAVE
FALLE
CREE
N
Deer Valley R1-18* LEAF
LN
K DA
23 R
Airport Overlay R1-8 PRD *
MARICOPA District (DVAO) ANX 254 D
Z-8-04
Z-43-02 DESERT PEAK PKWY
PL
COUNTY
R1-6* R1-6 * WA
Y R1-8 PRD*
ANX 254 ONE Z-8-04
T
Z-66-19 LS
Z-43-02 HIL
Ma ric o pa C ou n ty A ss es so r's O ffi ce
CAREFREE HWY
DOVE VALLEY RD
LONE M OUNTAIN RD
Miles DYNAMITE BLVD
JOMAX RD
0.2 0.1 0 0.2
DESERT VIEW VILLAGE
HAPPY VALLEY RD
PINNACLE PEAK RD
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 Z-46-19
CAVE CREEK RD
DEER VALLEY DR
BLACK MTN PKY
SR-101
MAYO BLVD
TATUM BLVD
56TH ST
64TH ST
SCOTTSDALE RD
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
FROM:
S-1 ( 213.18 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
11/9/2021
Z-46-19 REVISION DATES:
12/9/2021
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
213.18 Acres QS 48-32, 47-32 O-9, P-9 TO: PUD ( 213.18 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 213 N/A
PUD 250 N/A
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 982
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2019\Z-46-19_Update_Sep2021.mxd
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 5
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-46-19-2 (Sendero Foothills PUD)
Location: Approximately 900 feet north of the northeast corner of Cave Creek Dam
Road and Desert Peak Parkway
From: S-1
To: PUD
Acreage: 213.18
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow a mixture of single-family and
multifamily residential.
Applicant: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Owner: 24th Street and Jomax Road, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Tiffany & Bosco, PA
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Reports.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Desert View 5/4/2021 Information only.
Desert View 12/7/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 11-0.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with an
additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-46-19-2, per the
Addendum A Staff Report, with the additional stipulation as read into the record.
Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 6-2 (Bushing and Perez)
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: No
Findings:
1. The proposed PUD will donate a minimum of 120 acres to the Parks and Recreation
Department as an addition to the Phoenix Mountain Preserve and/or a desert park.
The development includes standards to ensure appropriate transitions from the
donated area to adjacent uses.
2. The proposal balances the need for additional housing, while retaining and preserving
the desert landscape, as outlined in the North Land Use Plan and Sonoran Preserve
Master Plan.
Page 983
3. The proposal includes several development standards, such as increased tree caliper,
edge conditions, and setbacks, and design guidelines that exceed conventional Zoning
Ordinance standards.
Stipulations:
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Sendero Foothills 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 November 29, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front Cover: Revise submittal date information on the cover page as follows:
1st Submittal: August 8, 2019
2nd Submittal: February 19, 2021
3rd Submittal: August 16, 2021
4th Submittal: November 2, 2021
Hearing Draft: November 29, 2021
b. Update the narrative to reflect a site acreage of 217.86 213.18 acres.
c. Page 10, Section D.1, Development Standards: Add the following under the
second paragraph:
x Maximum dwelling units for the overall PUD area: 250
x Development will be restricted to slopes of 20% or less
d. Page 15, Section D.2.iv: Increase live coverage to 75% to be consistent with the
live coverage standards for single-family and multifamily development.
e. Page 17, Section E.2, Site Design: Add the following language, “j. Walkways
and trails shall be wide enough, five-foot minimum, to accommodate both
pedestrians and bicycle users.”
2. Prior to the issuance of Final Site Plan approval, the landowner shall convey 120 acres
(or an area mutually agreed by the city and the owner) of hillside land selected by the
3. The landowner shall work with the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation Department
to determine a maximum of three access sites to the desert park or mountain preserve
area prior to issuance of Final Site Plan approval. Access sites shall be located in
mutually agreed upon locations by the City of Phoenix and the landowner and must be
identified and delineated on the Final Site Plan.
4. The developer is required to complete a Traffic Impact Study. Preliminary site plan
approval shall not be granted until the study has been approved by the Street
Transportation Department.
5. The development shall adhere to the dedications and infrastructure improvements as
stipulated in the approved Traffic Impact Study.
Page 984
6. The developer shall provide the Planning and Development Department with proof of
legal access between the development and a public right-of-way prior to final plat
approval. This private access shall be sufficient to service a subdivision in accordance
to the Subdivision Code in Chapter 32 of the City Code, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. If determined necessary by the Phoenix Archaeology Office, the applicant shall
conduct Phase I data testing and submit an archaeological survey report of the
development area for review and approval by the City Archaeologist prior to clearing
and grubbing, landscape salvage, and/or grading approval.
8. If Phase I data testing is required, and if, upon review of the results from the Phase I
data testing, the City Archaeologist, in consultation with a qualified archaeologist,
determines such data recovery excavations are necessary, the applicant shall conduct
Phase II archaeological data recovery excavations.
9. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33- foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
10. PRIOR TO 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 985
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Resolution Adoption - General Plan Amendment GPA-SM-2-
21-8 - Southeast Corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Resolution
21990)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This item is a companion case to Z-31-21-8 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-31-21-8.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 49.50 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Plan amendment to allow single-family detached
residential community
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard the case on Nov.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Dec. 2, 2021 and recommend
a continuance, by a vote of 8-0. The Planning Commission heard the case again on
Jan. 6, 2022 and recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 12, 2022.
Location
Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1835 W. South Mountain Ave.
Page 986
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 987
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-SM-2-21-8,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-SM-2-21-8. The 49.50-acre
site located at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue is
designated as Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 988
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February 2022.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 989
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager
Page 990
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
November 5, 2021
Application: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue
Acreage: 49.50 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre (49.50
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre (49.50
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Map Amendment to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre for a single-family residential
detached community
South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Date: November 9, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 2 to 3.5
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Page 991
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 2
3) The proposed land use designation is appropriate for a location adjacent to an
arterial street.
4) The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 includes standards that ensure
consistency in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent
single-family zoned property.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue and is presently vacant. The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 is
requesting to rezone the subject site from 49.52 acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence District) to 49.52 acres of R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow a
new 160-lot single-family detached community. The development, as proposed by the
applicant, would allow a density up to 3.23 dwelling units per gross acre. The subject
site is located adjacent to an arterial street (19th Avenue) which connects to Baseline
Road, approximately 0.5 miles to the north, and Dobbins Road which is approximately
0.25 miles to the south.
RIO MONTAÑA AREA PLAN
In 2000, the City of Phoenix adopted the Rio Montaña Area Plan which encourages the
preservation of the rural character of the area and incorporates transition zones to
protect desert and open space areas. The plan also encourages pedestrian and
equestrian activities through a network of trails and aspires to develop a sense of
community while encouraging investment in the community.
The Rio Montaña Area Plan intends to accomplish this vision through seven goals that
pertain to: promoting high quality development, protecting and improving
neighborhoods, keeping a distinctive character, protecting the rural character, promoting
business development, developing a tourist industry, providing a variety of
transportation options.
The Rio Montaña Proposed Land Use Plan map designated the subject site as
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre, while the proposal is to allow Residential 2 to
3.5 dwelling units per acre. As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development
will incorporate wide perimeter lots along the north and east property lines, provide a
wide open space area along the western perimeter, require pitched roofs to be
incorporated in all buildings, incorporate one-story limitations and open view fencing
elements along the perimeter streets. These elements will help provide an appropriate
land use transition consistent with development patterns in the area, while furthering
many of the goals of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
Page 992
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 3
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed general plan land use amendment is located in the southwest portion of
the South Mountain Village. North, west and east of the site, the General Plan Land Use
Map designation is a mix of Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. An active General
Plan Land Use Map amendment request for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
has been filed for a property at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
South of the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation is Residential 1 to 2
dwelling units per acre and Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned.
Approximately 0.1 miles north of the site, along 19th Avenue, and further along Baseline
Road are properties designated Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Furthermore, approximately 0.3 miles to the northwest and southeast of the site are
properties designated Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Other General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area include
Commercial, which allows multifamily development. These properties designated
Commercial are located approximately 0.25 miles to the south and 0.3 miles to the
north.
Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Page 993
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 4
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposal for a single-family detached residential community would allow
development of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses
in the area. As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development will
incorporate wide perimeter lots and open space areas, enhanced landscaping
and height restrictions, which will also help to provide a transition from the
proposed development to adjacent residential properties and to respect local
conditions.
• 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 for a single-family detached residential community, would allow
development of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses
in the area. An access point to the site is provided along 19th Avenue, an arterial
street, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development will incorporate wide
perimeter lots and open space areas, enhanced landscaping and height
restrictions, which will help maintain an appropriate scale for the area.
Furthermore, design and appearance of the development will be promoted
through several stipulations that require enhanced landscaping, pitched roofed
buildings, and durable materials in building elevations.
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that
support a broad range of lifestyles.
Approval of the request will allow the introduction of a single-family detached
community in an area where various residential densities exist. A range of zoning
districts exist in the area which include S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District),
Page 994
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 5
R1-18 (Single-Family Residence District) and R1-10 (Single-Family Residential
District). This proposed development will help to provide housing for a broader
range of lifestyles in the area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-SM-2-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation of 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre is consistent in scale and character with
existing land uses in the surrounding area. The land use map designation, as
requested, would further diversify the land uses in this part of the South Mountain
Village in a manner consistent with development patterns based on the existing zoning
and General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area. Furthermore, the
requested land use map designation provides a transition area between the larger lot
single-family residential community to the southeast and 19th Avenue, an arterial street.
As stipulated, the concurrent case Z-31-21-8 will enhance the compatibility and
consistency with the land use pattern in the surrounding area while furthering many of
the goals from the Rio Montaña Area Plan. Approval of the request, with concurrent
case Z-31-21-8, will support the development of this underutilized property with uses
that are compatible with the land use designations and zoning districts in the general
area.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 995
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-2-21-8_BW ACRES: 49.50 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 1-2 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
CityParcel
Proposed Change Area
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
E E E E E
E E E E EParks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
E E E E E
Mixed Use Agricultural
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 2-3.5 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/acre
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Page 996
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-2-21-8 ACRES: 49.50 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 1-2 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
CityParcel
Proposed Change Area
Residential 1 to 2 du/ac
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Commercial
Mixed Use Agricultural
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Public/Quasi-Public
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 2-3.5 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Page 997
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 49.50 acres from Residential 1 to 2
dwelling units per acre to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in the staff report
VPC Vote 8-3 Motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Busching,
Shepard, Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor;
Members Brooks, Brownell, and Holmerud in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Three members
registered in opposition, one neutral, one in support with conditions and two in
support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation for the
Minor General Plan amendment case GPA-SM-2-21-8 and concurrent rezoning
case Z-31-21-8. He discussed the location of the site, noting surrounding land
uses, existing General Plan Land Use map designations, and the proposed
designation on the site. He discussed the existing zoning in the area and
requested zoning for the site. He discussed policy documents including the
General Plan and Rio Montaña Area Plan. The conceptual site plan for the
proposed single-family subdivision was shown, indicating vehicular plus
pedestrian access points, open space location, building height limitations, and lot
widths proposed. The conceptual building renderings were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation of approval for
both cases and describing the proposed stipulations for case Z-31-21-8, as
presented in the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the location and history of the site. He provided an overview of each
application, discussed the demand for housing, and surrounding zoning districts.
Page 998
He discussed the site plan, proposed project features such as fencing elements,
building renderings, goals and policies from the General Plan and Rio Montaña
Area Plan. An overview of issues related to health, safety, connectivity,
appearance, walls, and energy savings was provided. A summary of public
outreach was provided, including site plan revisions made to accommodate
drainage and other elements. Roadway and flooding-related issues were
discussed, in addition to a new rezoning stipulation proposed regarding
pedestrian access to the Western Canal from South Mountain Avenue. He
concluded the presentation by providing a summary of the project and requested
approval of both cases.
Lee Coleman and Fatima Said left the meeting at 9:05pm, bringing the quorum to
11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if the committee had any questions for the applicant
or staff regarding these cases.
Gene Holmerud stated that this site is not a compound in the area.
Kay Shepard would like to see off-setting of lots and curvilinear streets for a
better community. Mr. Baugh responded that his team could address the off-
setting of the lots.
Lee Coleman asked for clarification on the development option used. He
discussed the development standards. Mr. Baugh responded that the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) option was used, and the project will follow all
development standards.
Marcia Busching is not in favor of gated communities and asked the following
questions:
• Does staff have concerns with the additional stipulation proposed by the
applicant?
• Can the fencing plan be stipulated?
• Do irrigation facilities have to be undergrounded?
Mr. Bojórquez responded that a closer review of the new stipulation would be
needed to determine if any conflicts arise. The Street Transportation Department
provided the stipulation which requires the undergrounding and relocation of
existing irrigation facilities outside of the right-of-way.
Greg Brownell stated that Mr. Baugh’s staff have done a good job. However,
Minor General Plan Amendment cases should be heard first before the rezoning
case to actively plan land uses. This is a staff problem as this is a bad way to
plan, but Mr. Baugh has done what the committee and staff should be doing. The
General Plan case should not have a companion case since this promotes a
Page 999
suggestion on the land use. He will not vote in favor due to this procedure and
would reprimand staff if there was a formal way to do so.
Mr. Holmerud asked how water conservation was being considered. Mr. Baugh
responded that one of the stipulations limited the use of high-water use plants
such as turf.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked how the community concerns regarding the single-
story limitations was being addressed. Mr. Baugh responded that he would
agree that a minimum of 20-percent of the homes be kept at one-story.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Ms. Shepard’s comments.
Chairwoman Daniels asked of flood maps had been looked at in the area. Mr.
Baugh responded that flood maps were shared by Patti Trites and these were
reviewed. The canal bank and open space locations will help address flooding.
Chairwoman Daniels likes some gated communities. She asked if members of
the public wanted to speak on this case.
Jewel Clark, resident of the area, introduced herself and asked that staff no
longer share copies of presentation slides from the public with the developer
ahead of the meeting. She showed a brief presentation and discussed the
outcome of a previous rezoning case across the street, roadways, drainage, and
the Rio Montaña Area Plan. The area should remain with existing R1-18 and S-1
zoning. She discussed traffic and flooding issues at the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. She discussed a map depicting existing
zoning designations in the area and asked for these applications to be denied.
Mike Josic, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that in 2018 the
South Mountain VPC denied a similar rezoning request across 19th Avenue. He
asked for a 90-day continuance on the case to continue to work with the
developer. He lives in the area and would be affected. This project is not
appropriate here and liked the South Central TOD presentation. Tiny lots will
destroy the character of the area and do not reflect the existing character. There
was not enough time to meet with the developer, as he only participated once in
a virtual meeting about the project.
Erin Hegedus, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that 3 years
ago a similar conversation was had, and this project is not consistent with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan. She discussed proposed enhancements and lives across
the street from the project. She has not seen any planned improvements for the
site. She asked how this project will improve the community and stated that there
is a lack of trails now. Take a good look at this project as it will affect this
community and does not support this project.
Page 1000
Troy Gamm, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that this is a
good developer. This proposed project looks nice, has one-story limitations and
the main gate is along 19th Avenue. He supports this project.
Penny Gamm, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that this
project keeps the feel of the area. One-story homes are good and will help keep
the views, while allowing future residents a short commute to Downtown Phoenix
and providing good access for families. This builder is thoughtful on design and
provides a good housing product.
Steven Higginbotham, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that
he moved to this area because he enjoys recreation, and discussed the
comments made by the applicant regarding pedestrian and vehicular access. He
discussed the notification letter and feels that in general increasing the density of
the area is heading in the wrong direction. He discussed receiving the notification
letter recently and discussed his concerns.
Mr. Baugh stated that he met with Magdalena Estates early in the process and
the feedback received was incorporated from members of the public. He would
like to move forward in the process.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if he would consider continuing the cases. Mr.
Baugh responded that he has been working on these cases for 11 months now
and has incorporated much of the feedback received. He is unsure on what else
could be accomplished by continuing the cases.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that she is a native of Phoenix and has seen this
community grow. She expects it to continue growing into the future. She asked
for questions or further discussion from the committee.
MOTION – GPA-SM-2-21-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to approve case GPA-SM-2-21-8 per the staff
recommendation presented in the staff report. Ms. Shepard seconded the
motion to approve.
VOTE – GPA-SM-2-21-8:
8-3, motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Busching, Shepard, Smith,
Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor; Members Brooks, Brownell, and Holmerud
in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 1001
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
From: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
To: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 49.50
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a single-family detached
residential community.
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 11/9/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-3.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Bushing made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-2-21-8, per the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as
read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan Amendment
to the Land Use Map.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed land use designation is appropriate for a location adjacent to an arterial
street.
Page 1002
4. The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency
in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family
zoned property.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 1003
Attachment E
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ GPA-SM-2-21-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION (Continued from opposition x applicant
12/2/2021) and
Z-31-21-8
(Continued from
12/2/2021)
Southeast corner of
19th Avenue and
South Mountain
Avenue
PC January 6, 2020 West South Mountain Avenue
APPEALED FROM: 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85041
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC February 2, 2022
HEARING H. Jewel Clark
480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Doesn't conform to 2015 General Plan for density and rural character. Splits
contiguously zoned S-1 & R1-18 community. Does not preserve/enhance
neighborhood character and certainty for existing community. Negotiations are
ongoing between neighborhood and developer and approval as submitted is
premature.
RECEIVED BY: Nayeli Sanchez RECEIVED ON: January 12, 2022
Alan Stephenson Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Diana Hernandez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Page 1004
Page 1005
Attachment F
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-31-21) and Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA-SM-2-21), Kimura Gardens
Development
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:31:27 AM
Hello and good morning -
Thank you for accepting my comments.
The Providence group has been very active in its outreach to neighbors during the planning to
develop the property immediately south of Magdalena Estates, where we live - this is greatly
appreciated. And, to be fair, they have listened and been responsive to the majority of concerns.
Although I am a member of Magdalena Estate's HOA Board, I have no authority to speak on behalf of
the community or our Board, only for our lot 13.
We have several points to make:
Everyone knows that there will be development. We are lucky to have enjoyed our relative isolation
for as long as we have. So, the goal is to maintain the property values and quality of life for those
who already live here.
The configuration of Kimura Gardens will set an important precedent for the future of this area. The
originally presented number of homes was 178 and has been reduced to 150. Still, that is very
dense, and the effect upon traffic, light, and noise is going to be significant. Frankly, I would prefer
that the density be the same as Magdalena Estates and The Commons to assure continuity within
this area.
A discussion point during the planning process has been whether the homes will be one or two
stories. I understand the economic ramifications of all single story construction. But the quality of
life consequences are also important - more stories means more people, more cars, more light,
more noise - all of which mitigate against maintaining the current quiet that we who already live
here enjoy.
No one walks away completely satisfied. But, please consider that if all the homes in Kimura
Gardens were one story, this would set a good precedent for the future of this area, it would
equalize the property values among the three developments (The Commons, Magdalena Estates,
and Kimura Gardens), it would create a relatively more tranquil and safe environment.
In sum - if a condition of zoning approval is that all homes are single story, we in lot 13 endorse the
other aspects of the development plan as we understand them.
Thank you.
JoAnne Jensen (480-213-6499)
Page 1006
Steven D. Smith
8303 S. 17th Drive
Phoenix AZ 85041
Page 1007
From: Dan Martin
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fwd: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:12:50 PM
Enrique,
I would like to concur with my neighbor that a request for a space between the neighborhoods
would be welcomed. One of the main reasons that I purchased a home in The Commons
community was that the homes did not face another home to their rear. This is why I paid
$100K more than my previous home situated in Laveen. Would it be possible to change the
road frontage setback to the West on 19th Avenue from 150 feet to 140 feet in order to provide
a 10 foot space with a walking path between the two neighborhoods? This essentially would
not change the design of the Kumura Gardens but shift it 10 feet to the West.
Sincerely,
Dan Martin
8612 S 16th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
513-305-0258
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: larry Brown
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:48 PM
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
To:
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Page 1008
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1009
Attachment G
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: bassinby@msn.com; erintkhegedos@hotmail.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Companion Case Z-31-21-8):
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:26:47 PM
I am writing to request to speak to the referenced rezoning request by Providence Homes and
Newcastle Development.
I want to state in advance that although I would rather maintain the last of the agriculture that is left
in Phoenix, I know that ultimately the land will be developed.
I ask for consideration of the following:
An explanation of how the already exhausted infrastructure of South Mountain
Avenue, Dobbins Road and 19th Avenue would tolerate the approximately 300 + more
vehicles this development will create.
Currently, Dobbins Road, South Mountain Avenue and 19th Avenue are only two lane
roads surrounded by irrigation canals … In some areas of South Mountain Avenue, this
road reduces to one lane.
I am aware that the developer will present to the Council that there is a shortage of housing,,
however, there are hundreds of developments underway in this area code which would offset that
concern.
Additionally, I ask to respect the Rio Montana Plan that was strategically planned to maintain
the integrity of this neighborhood.
Higher density housing and lower cost housing are a conflict to that plan and would negatively
affect this neighborhood and any additional interest in retailers that might consider this area.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1010
From: Miguel Rubio
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens opposition lette
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:18:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique once again..
We are opposed to this project ,because it will affect us pretty bad, as we have a hard time getting
out of our property on 8020 s 20th ave , every time we get on the intersection of latona and 19th
ave , it takes forever for us to have access and having several hundred of vehicles is going to make it
worse.
That reason the we bough our property is because we like the rural life, and having all that people
living here next to us is going to affect me and my family.
The value on our property is going to decrease and is not what I want for me and my family.
We figth it over this with mister ward on the opposite corner, and this is going to be the same we
are a really good community , we stay together and this is what we want for our kids and grandkids.
This is one of the last places the still have the opportunity to have this privacy and this people is
trying to take it from us.
We are not opposed of them building we just wanted to preserve large lots and low density.
I am pretty sure that you guys would do the same for your family.
Thank you very much and have a great day.
MIGUEL RUBIO
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 2OTH AVE
PHX,AZ 85041
(602) 366 9334
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Miguel Rubio
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens
Good morning Miguel,
How are you? You may email me your opposition letter in regards to this project (Case Nos. GPA-SM-
Page 1011
2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8).
Let me know if questions arise.
Thank you!
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura gardens
Hello Enrique, this is MIGUEL RUBIO.
I would like to know where can I send my opposition letter to..?
Rb contracting llc
8020 s 20th Ave
Phoenix az, 85041
602 366 9334
Page 1012
Racelle Escolar
From: Robin Shared
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 12:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Hello,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Kimura Gardens development at the intersection of
South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue. Some of these concerns are specific to this development and its
developer (Providence Homes), while others, especially traffic and flood management, relate to both Kimura
Gardens and to the area as a whole including other developments in planning stages.
For the reasons below, I'm requesting more time for the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns about this development and the way the approvals process
has functioned thus far.
Providence Homes proposes to build a development on about 49 acres with at least 160 units at the SE corner
of 19th Ave and South Mountain Lane.
The busiest corner of South Mountain lane is the northeast corner where Magdalena Estates development has
26 houses. Immediately east of the proposed location for Kimura Gardens is another Providence Homes
development, The Commons, which has 35-40 homes. The northwest corner has 3 houses and the southwest
corner is open land.
There is no way that 160 units in the middle of this community will not have a serious impact that goes far
beyond obliterating the very real neighborhood character that Providence Homes claims to respect.
South Mountain Lane is a very busy stretch of multipurpose road that includes traffic from pedestrians,
bicycles and equestrians in addition to a wide variety of vehicle traffic from Mini Coopers to large scale farm
equipment.
Improvements are needed to make this area safe for the wide variety of foot, bike, horse and vehicle traffic that
are already exists. Simply widening the road will not be sufficient, as functional wide paths are needed to safely
separate the volume of diverse traffic the area already gets.
Adding at least 160 vehicles to this area will be an immediate and serious unsafe impact on everyone who
uses this street.
Flooding off of South Mountain is an ongoing issue in the area as a whole and especially at the intersection of
19th Ave and South Mountain Lane. This intersection is not safe to drive through in any amount of rain, which
at times will flood not only the intersection but much of 19th Ave north of the intersection.
Replacing what is currently a highly absorbant cotton field on the southeast with houses, streets and driveways
will significantly impact water movement in this area which must be considered and safely managed to protect
drivers on 19th Ave as well as the existing properties that surround the area.
This is especially a concern given that the developer representative claimed in the November 9 meeting that
he doesn't have up to date flood maps because he hasn't been "given them." (This despite multiple attempts to
rush the process).
We absolutely do not want a development going in near us that threatens our safety in multiple ways, as
Kimura Gardens currently does by proposing to more than double the drivers at this intersection without
Page11013
making plans for traffic or flooding, let alone showing any awareness or respect for the community's semi-rural
zoning and lifestyles.
The developer has also told multiple people in the community that Providence Homes will show their respect
for the community by committing to single story buildings, to following the Rio Montana plans and to minimal
zoning increases - yet in meetings, he proposes increasing units per lot to 3.5 (instead of 2) and showed
multistory buildings with garage prominent designs. The developer's representative also responded with
noticeable aggravation to questions about the multiple significant deviations from he Rio Montana plans they
claim to be following and to questions about the discrepancies between the several different lot layouts shown
and the inconsistent representation of green areas which make evaluating the plans for lot size, unit size and
responsible water management impossible.
In addition to my concerns about Kimura Gardens and about large scale development in the South Mountain
Village area, I have serious concerns about the procedures and transparency of the Nov 9 zoning meeting.
In this meeting, the developer took intellectual property from community members and incorporated it into his
presentation with the aid of the staff who set up the meeting and shared her materials without her knowledge
or consent, while in turn the developer's presentation materials were not made available to other
commenters by the staff.
This is highly concerning - as are the multiple procedural irregularities noted by board members throughout the
meeting and especially during this presentation. Procedural concerns included (but were not limited to) the
developer's presentation being submitted late, the board members not having a chance to review the material,
the developer rushing approval process steps and trying to piggyback additional approvals into the process
and other breaks with procedure for the process and for the meeting itself.
The impression given to the audience was that participation in the approval process is not equal or transparent
and that many of the board members are willing to skip following procedure and not listen to the board
members who are concerned about following the rules laid out for equity and transparency.
Best,
Rebekah
Page21014
Racelle Escolar
From: Gina Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 3:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Southmountainand19th@gmail.com
Subject: 12/2/21 comment for Item 4. GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello,
I am a resident of Magdalena Estates, adjacent to the general plan amendment
consideration for Kimura Gardens at 19th Ave and South Mountain Ave, Item 4:
GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Item 3: Companion Case Z-31-21-8) . I would like to appeal to
the committee to ensure the general plan submitted aligns to the City plan of Rio
Montana recommendations and continue this request by sending back to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further review, community
discussion, and planning.
Rio Montana plan states the closer to South Mountain the lesser the density. I
believe this property should be zoned as R1-18 to support 2.34 (with bonus)
units/acre rather than the proposed R1-10 that would put 3.25 units/acre. This is
too dense for this rural area. I understand the growth of Phoenix, but we must
maintain quality of rural life in one of the few places in Phoenix it's still found
while maintaining mountain view property values. The developer has much to do
still to support the Rio Montana plan and enhance the South Mountain area, not
continue to reduce it.
Additionally, the staff for the South Mountain Village (SMV) Planning Committee
handled this process poorly by trying to rush through the GPA and the rezoning
at the same time with insufficient time for review by the SMV Planning Committee
and the Public. Not allowing the neighborhood to provide input on the GPA.
Thankfully, the committee recognized this poor management and continued the
zoning process.
It is not often I would submit my comment but I care for this community, the
resale values. and continued uplifting and improvement of South Phoenix areas.
Please consider not approving this General Amendment Plan and send it back to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. As of 11/29/21 the developer
didn't have an amended plan to share with the community or to present to you. I
think they need more time to complete their plan and I ask that you, at minimum,
continue this request for the developer to submit an adjusted plan.
Thank you,
Gina Johnson
Magdalena Estates
1816 W. Magdalena Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041
bakergmb@gmail.com
Page11015
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
I'm commenting as a community resident near where Kimura Gardens will be built, to ask that the approval process be
slowed.
There are several concerns about this development that have yet to be answered, including safety issues for current
residents and future residents. The infrastructure in this area is simply not prepared for 160 units and the estimated
300+ more drivers that would accompany them. The intersection at South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue is already
overwhelmed with just two neighborhoods under 40 units each, as is South Mountain Lane, which is barely a lane and a
half.
Our community supports development that follows zoning R1‐18 and layouts like that in the Rio Montana Plan.
I believe more time would allow the community, the city and the developer to work together to find solutions to
the concerns.
Sincerely,
Steven Higginbotham
‐‐
Steven Higginbotham
Page11016
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:21 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8
I am writing to address my concerns with the referenced plan as it does not conform to the Rio Montana Plan that was
purposely thought out to maintain the integrity of this unique are in Phoenix. There are few areas of this density and
agriculture presence in the valley and once developed will never return.
Among my concerns are the following:
Alleys for rear entry garages (indicated in the Rio Montana Plan for R1-10 and lower density)
Side entry garages if not all areas can have alleys
Any garages left that are font-facing have a minimum 10' setback to the front of the house. All of the
facade examples have front facing garages that are or are nearly 50% of the front of the house. This is
a no-no.
Actual porches on all home designs. This is in the stipulations by the city planning staff but not reflected
in the housing design examples. That said, the staff does not recommend adherence to those designs.
Staggered lot sizes side by side. The RM Plan specifically calls for lot widths to vary in an alternating
pattern, for example: 55ft, 65ft, 55ft, 65ft, etc. As laid out, the current site design groups the same sized
lots together.
Commitment to drought tolerant/native trees on properties and not just in the open spaces to mitigate
heat island effect.
Shaded sidewalks within the development and not just on the perimeter landscaping
Preserve irrigation (this was a subject requested/asked about by one of the committee members)
LEED building practices
Additionally, and most importantly to me, the infrastructure does not support the current traffic, let alone the
additional traffic that the request for increased density will bring to the area.
I ask for you to look at this request with the eyes that believe in maintaining unique neighborhoods in Phoenix.
Thank you.
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11017
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:44 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Comments for Item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8 - City of Phoenix Planning Commission meeting- Dec. 2, 2021
Agenda item #4, Case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to oppose the approval, at this meeting, of case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8, which changes the zoning of 49.5 acres on
the southeast corner of 19th Ave. and West South Mountain Ave. from S‐1 to R1‐10 and request that it be returned to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further discussion in conjunction with its companion case Z‐31‐21‐8.
My husband and I have our home at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and we have owned that property since Nov. 2009.
We purchased in the area for the larger lots, custom homes, and equestrian/rural character of the South Mountain area.
While we are not opposed to development, we and our neighbors strongly believe that the design and planning
guidelines of the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and the Rio Montana Plan be adhered to‐ just as we have adhered to them‐
when any new development is proposed. That plan, and the future certainty that it provided, factored highly in our
decision to buy our property here.
Mr. John Poulsen of Providence Homes has requested a zoning density of R1‐10 that is flatly incompatible with the
neighborhood character of the surrounding area and in an area with a known history of street flooding and undeveloped
infrastructure. That said, Mr. Poulsen does seem to be working in good faith with the neighbors to try and find
compromise, and we welcome that. However, there is much that is still up in the air. Mr. Poulsen and Ben Tate from
Withey Morris met for the first time since the SMVPC meeting just this Monday, Nov. 28, with the neighbors to hear our
concerns and our ideas. We felt the conversation was productive, but they have not had time to draft any changes to the
site plan to present or have additional dialog with the neighbors as of this letter.
The companion case Z‐31‐21‐8 was not approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee because there was
a lack of adherence to the Rio Montana Plan, many neighbors were opposed‐ citing very real concerns about
neighborhood character, home values, and inadequate infrastructure for traffic and flooding‐ and that the city planning
staff did not submit their documents until the Friday before the meeting, providing inadequate time for the public and
the committee to thoughtfully review the proposal.
I respectfully request that GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 remain with its companion case Z‐31‐21‐8 at the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee in the approval process and only move forward once Mr. Poulsen and the neighbors have had more
time to work together and resolve the development concerns therein.
Jewel Clark
2020 West South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480.664.9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11018
Racelle Escolar
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
We live in Magdalena Estates, a group of homes immediately north of the planned Kimura Gardens development.
First – thanks to the Poulson group for engaging in ongoing conversations with us and our neighbors to best work out
how we all can be comfortable with inevitable change. They have been very attentive and have been patiently willing to
modify their plans.
In fact, a sizable group of neighbors met with Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate on the afternoon of Monday (11/29) at the
planned Kimura Gardens site to review our collective wants and needs. And, as of this writing, a telephonic conference
call is being scheduled for later this week.
Which brings me to my second, and main, point. The review process for these two requests (which go hand in hand) is
so compressed that it is ahead of the ongoing evolution of the plan. In other words, there has been no time to formalize
the modifications. This is not the fault of the Planning Commission or of any governmental organization, it is just a
timing issue. And timing issues can easily be remedied by taking a time out, which by no means is the same as denying a
request.
This is my request – can we please return to the Village Planning level with both requests and take a breath before any
further formal action is taken? We need this to give us a chance to help prepare the best possible development plan
which will be acceptable to the largest number of people and to present a concrete proposal rather than an ever
changing and amorphous concept. Procedurally and administratively, it makes most sense is these two requests are
kept in synch. Just as it makes the most sense for all the details to be in place before the concept it approved.
There is no one with whom I have spoken who opposes development, if the density and home sizes / construction are
consonant with The Commons and Magdalena Estates. We know growth and change are coming and, when properly
done, will bring benefits for everyone. The willingness of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate to sit and discuss and listen is
impressive and I am confident that by encouraging the design guidelines from the Rio Montana Plan for this area, the
Poulson group will find support. We purchased our home because of the demographics, the lot sizes, the quality of
construction, and the quiet rural nature of Magdalena Estates. Our goal is to continue that quality of life.
Thank you for considering my remarks. Based on comments from other neighbors, I can safely say that this represents
the perspectives of the majority of our community.
Page11019
Racelle Escolar
From: Dianne Olivo
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
I am directly across from this proposed project.
I am opposed to the rezoning of agriculture property it should remain as zoned agriculture And 1 dwelling per acre for
following reasons:
# 1 Density would increase strain on already stretched water resources especially during drought. There should be an
impact study of the water use and needs as well as all the other reasons i.e. traffic and especially the pollution impact of
adjacent neighbor to south (produces methane gas) into the air.
2‐ buildout irrigation throughout development to each 1 acre lot and increase pricing to offset.
3‐ Bottom line there is no proven need for more nondescript housing anywhere currently. especially taking out valuable
agricultural quickly disappearing land to be paved under asphalt adding to our climate change and O‐Zone problems
that’s why we have zoning and hopefully responsible people on the board
Dianne Olivo
TDRANCH
8804 S 19th Ave
Page11020
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
To: Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:45:30 PM
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
Best,
Rebekah
Page 1021
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 10:18:14 PM
Hello,
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
.
Steven Higginbotham
1804 w Magdalena Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1022
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; trentchristopher@gmail.com; Marcia Busching; twanna.bhna@yahoo.com; Greg Brownell;
edward@yourgreatestself.com; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: REquest to speak and comment: Z-31-21-8 GPA-SM-3-21-8
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:05:57 PM
Dear Enrique
I would like to register to at tomorrow's SMVPC.
I would like to also speak for Agenda Item # 6 & 7 for Z-31-21-8 companion case GPA -SM -
3-21-8
- Thank you in advance for contacting the Maricopa County Flood Control District and
looking at the flood maps of this property.
- Thank you also for keeping the entrance and exit into this new proposed community
off of 19th Avenue.
19th Avenue is the entrance to the South Mountain Trailhead: 19th Ave. (Ma-Ha-Tauk)
Trailhead at 10484 S. 19th Ave.
Per the COP own site: At more than 16,000 acres, South Mountain Park/Preserve is one of
the largest municipally managed parks in the nation and consists
of three mountain ranges - the Ma Ha Tauk, Gila and Guadalupe. The park boasts more
than 50 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding and mountain
biking. Additionally, the roadways throughout the park are a favorite for bicyclists.
- Safety and the beauty of South Mountain should be maintained as new development
happens in the area.
Many people - residents and visitors - utilize 19th Avenue as their entrance onto South
Mountain Trailhead.
Keep it safe. Do not allow entrance or exits onto 19th avenue for new developments.
- Flood Control and COP are also planning on a 66" storm drain pipe and catch basins
along 19th Avenue to South Mountain.
Keep 19th Avenue free of resident traffic as possible for safety.
- Please keep the South Mountain Area looking complementary to its surroundings;
1. Avoid block walls 'prison' effect around the new communities.
2. Please include plenty of plants/trees and Decorative Iron Fencing to surround the new
developments.
3. Please have interior green space for the new residents.
These three items - when done correctly - will enhance the area and match the unique
South Mountain Preserve Area.
Lets keep South Mountain Preserve beautiful.
Thank you.
Patti Trites
Homeowner at South Mountain
President of Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Page 1023
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1024
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura - case Z-31-21-8 (GPA-SM-2-21-8 is currently continued)
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 6:45:09 PM
I am asking for a continuance to this case.
The developer has recently met with the community but has submitted to the Council a different
plan that was discussed. I believe this project is being accelerated without documentation on what
the community is asking in order to maintain the character and diversity of our neighborhood.
I am extremely concerned with how the infrastructure is going to support this development in
addition to the existing, let alone the new homes that are currently under construction on South
Mountain Avenue and Dobbins Road.
These roadways are 1 to 2 lane roads that currently cannot support the traffic, I ask that you
consider this, and before approving further development, conduct a study plan in advance to
understand the impact, not only on the traffic but the heat island this and other developments are
creating.
Respectfullly,
Erin Hegedus
8630 South 19th Avenue
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1025
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8 Continuance Recommendation
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:54:18 PM
Hello -
This is to request a continuance for item Z-31-21-8, to rezone the 49.5 acre parcel on the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain to R1-18.
The community is in ongoing discussions with the Providence group, who is developing this parcel.
The current stipulations do not and will likely not be reflected in the final proposal, when all is said
and done. It is my feeling that the South Mountain Village Planning Committee should have the
opportunity to review the final version and make its recommendation to the Planning Commission
based on something that is more than notional.
We thank the Providence group for their time and attention to the neighbors and hope that we are
nearing completion of our talks.
We also believe that there is no harm done by taking a deep breath; by taking our time, we will get it
right rather than rushing into something which is ill-conceived and which may have unintended
consequences.
Please add me to the list of those requesting a continuance. A continuance is not a rejection, nor
does it equate with opposition. We know there will be development, we just want to be sure it is
appropriate to this area.
Thank you all very much for your efforts on behalf of our unique rural community.
JoAnne Jensen
8303 S. 17th Drive (Magdalena Estates)
Phoenix AZ 85041
480-213-6499
Page 1026
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:40 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Opposition to Cases GPA-SM-3-21-8 and Z-58-21-8 - SMVPC meeting Dec. 14, 2021
Hi Enrique,
Thank you! Here's my letter for Kimura.
Opposition to case Z‐31‐21‐8, agenda item #6
I am writing in opposition to the Kimura Gardens development project (case number referenced above) and to
request a continuance for the reasons stated here.
Despite the committee voting to approve the General Plan Amendment (case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8), both plans are
overwhelmingly opposed by the surrounding community for the principal reason that the density is wholly
inappropriate for our area in addition to issues of traffic, flooding, and heat island concerns that have not
been addressed. Since the last committee meeting there have been other developments that keep the
community opposed to the plan as submitted.
We've had some challenges in working with Withey Morris and Mr. Poulsen to find common ground.
The Vice Mayor is aware of the neighborhood's concerns and has arranged a meeting, which he will attend, for
the neighbors and Mr. Poulsen/Withey Morris to talk through our outstanding issues with this development.
That meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 15. A continuance until such talks are complete is respectfully
requested.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021, at 8:16 AM, Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:
Good morning Jewel,
How are you? Thank you for sending over the following information on these two cases. I will save a
copy in the case file and will share it with the South Mountain VPC as well.
By the way, the Chair has agreed to hear your presentation tonight. I would anticipate maybe 2 minutes
for the presentation, but she will assign the actual time to all speakers.
Page 1027
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: December 14: SMVPC Meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:45:32 AM
Attachments: Outlook-rmpvn2ah.png
Outlook-o00zkkho.png
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola:
I have been a South Mountain resident and homeowner for 9.5 years. I registered for the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting on December 14th and would like to
comment if possible. In case I cannot speak, I’m documenting my opposition to three
rezoning items. The Committee should disapprove rezoning to increase the number of
residential units. The proposed changes will cause excessive vehicle traffic and congestion on
the local streets. The new homes currently under construction in the surrounding area are
not even fully built yet, and there is already much traffic at the intersection where 19th
Avenue meets Dobbins Road. Many of the streets in the rezoning area were built as "country
roads" -- not meant for higher-density residential developments. In the future, there should
be a new traffic study when the latest homes along the Dobbins corridor (7th Avenue to Loop
202) are occupied.
The right developers for this land should integrate their plans within the current zoning. The
South Mountain area is a unique and historic location, and it is quickly becoming a generic
bedroom community with roads not built to meet the needs of higher-volume residential
developments.
_____________________________________________
Z-31-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-2-21-8)- OPPOSE
GPA-SM-3-21-8 (Companion Case Z-58-21-8)- OPPOSE
Z-58-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-3-21-8)- OPPOSE
_____________________________________________
Dean Chiarelli, Mobile phone 702-994-8077
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page 1028
Racelle Escolar
From: Dean Chiarelli
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:24 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: SMVPC Meeting January 6th - Opposition Notice
To South Mountain Village Planning Committee:
Re: Meeting Thursday, January 6th
I am strongly opposed to the items indicated below and request to speak.
Case numbers GPA‐SM‐3‐21‐8 and Z‐58‐21‐8 (Agenda items 2 and 3).
Case numbers GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 (Agenda items 8 and 9).
I am opposed to the items because of excessive congestion on surface roads. The SMVPC is authorizing
excessive approvals of rezoning in the area in tandem with a lack of new cultural amenities/ businesses to
enhance quality of life in the area. The rural character of the area is rapidly changing for the worst, and this is
against the City of Phoenix planning codes and Food Plan for South Phoenix. I respectfully request an updated
traffic study which includes activity for homes currently under construction in the Dobbins Corridor. There are
new homes along Dobbins Road from 16th Street all the way to the Loop 202 which aren't even built yet that
will increase the congestion.
I also want to express concern the Chair of the Committee stated in the December 2021 meeting that she is a
Realtor who grew up in South Phoenix. There is an appearance of bias towards approval of higher‐density
residential zoning for which the Chair may personally benefit.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page11029
Racelle Escolar
From: rob@copperstatemetals.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 items 8 and 9
4 JAN 2022
Honorable Planning Commission Members:
We are writing to voice our opposition to the Kimura development as it currently stands. Our concerns are the increase
in traffic on streets which are already used beyond their capacity. By any definition, portions of South Mountain Ave.
and 15th Ave. are only one lane and poorly maintained. Additionally the intersection of South Mountain and 19th Ave.
is already dangerous and will only get worse with the addition of well over 100 homes in this development alone. We
would also ask the Commission to consider the effect on the property values of the current residents. Most lots are 1/4
acre and more in the area, and most homes are well over 2200 sf as well as single story only. Allowing smaller homes on
smaller lots will only exacerbate the current traffic and drainage issues in the area and negatively impact the property
values of the established residents in order to allow the developers to make more money. This is not good for the
community and it is not just. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Robert D. Barnes
Geniveve R. Tapia
8312 S. 18th Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11030
Racelle Escolar
From: azleatherking
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:19 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Kimura project 19th ave
My name is Don Olson, and I own 8640 s 19ave, across the street from the proposed Kimura project. I am vehemently
opposed to the density of homes being asked for by the developer. This area is ag/residential, and the infrastructure
does not support what is here now, much less adding 150 houses.
GPA‐sm‐2‐21‐8
Z‐31‐21‐8
Don olson 8640 s 19 ave, phx 85041
602 434 5641
Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device
Page11031
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z‐31‐21‐8 and GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 (aka
Kimura Gardens) on the following grounds: discussions between discussions between the community and the
developers are ongoing and the currently submitted stipulations are not only inconsistent with those conversations but
also inadequate for the safety and quality of life of this community.
Best,
Rebekah
Page11032
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z‐31‐21‐8 and GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 (aka
Kimura Gardens) on the following grounds: discussions between discussions between the community and the
developers are ongoing and the currently submitted stipulations are not only inconsistent with those conversations but
also inadequate for the safety and quality of life of this community.
‐‐
Steven Higginbotham
Page11033
Racelle Escolar
From: Ravi Sharma
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:03 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: Item # 2 and Case # GPA-SM-3-21-8, Item #3 and Case # Z-58-21-8, Item # 8 and Case #GPA-SM-2-21-8
(Continued from 12/2/2021), Item # 9 and Case #
Z‐31‐21‐8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
We are opposed to the proposed changes.
Dr. Ravi and Mrs. Snigdha Sharma
Page11034
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:08 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 / Kimura Gardens
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
My name is JoAnne Jensen, our address is 8303 So. 17th Drive, Phoenix AZ 85041; this is in Magdalena Estates, which is to the immediate north of
the parcel which the Providence group wishes to develop, and which is the subject of the two requests, named above.
I have been one of two points of contact between the South Mountain neighbors and the Providence group and thank Mr. Poulsen, Ben Tate, and
Adam Baugh of the Providence group for their patient attention throughout our discussions.
It is important to note that these discussions are ongoing and in fact, the present stipulations are out of date with current conversations and likely
agreements. What we need more than anything is a continuation so that we can maintain progress toward resolving our remaining differences.
If a continuation is not granted, then I cannot support the current stipulations, particularly the absence of robust heat mitigation measures and the
presence of a high number of dwellings. To be very specific – this is not an objection to the development, or to a future agreement regarding
stipulations, but solely to the current stipulations – density and absence of heat mitigation efforts.
General consensus within this community is that responsible development in the face of climate change and the proximity of the warmest location
in Phoenix must necessarily include heat mitigation efforts. One might argue that heat mitigation efforts on one 50 acre development will make no
difference – but this is the kind of argument which has led to today’s problems with excessive heat and parching conditions. Absent sufficient
stipulations, this plan is unacceptable.
Neighbors do not object to development, per se, however we feel it should be in keeping with the Rio Montana general plan, which was in place
when we each decided to invest in this rural and agricultural part of town. There is a general sense that the concerns of current residents and
business owners are being set aside to meet economic interests of the developer. We would not have objected to R1‐18 zoning. Indeed, we would
not have objected to R1‐18 with bonus, which would have enabled 114 dwellings, as that is similar to the two adjacent developments, The
Commons (which, incidentally, is also a Providence development) and Magdalena Estates. However, we do not support the building of 156 homes,
as the stipulation currently reads. Mr. Poulsen and the Providence group have argued that they have been making many concessions – from two
stories to one, from 180 units to 173 to 156, and these are appreciated. However, the neighbors likewise feel that density beyond R1‐18 with
bonus is a significant concession.
We are concerned that the last City traffic study in this area with in the 2012 – 2013 timeframe. Since then, quite a few homes have been built and
we believe that the addition of this development at the currently requested density will lead to even more traffic congestion than we already
experience. At present, the thoroughfares are woefully inadequate to support this level of growth and developers are required to improve only
the lengths of pavement parallel to the development property line. We believe that the lack of uniformity will not be sufficient to provide safe and
uncongested traffic flows on either 19th Avenue or South Mountain.
In summary – my primary request is that the Planning Commission issues a continuation for the two above‐referenced requests so that the
neighbors and the Providence group can pursue ongoing discussions and come to a reasonable resolve. Again, we do not object to development,
per se, but we request time to achieve this goal.
Thank you for your time and attention.
JoAnne Jensen
Cell – 480‐213‐6499
Email – joannejensen@cox.net
Page11035
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:47 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
I am writing to request a continuance of the referenced. We have had very promising negotiations with the developer,
however, we ask that a formal submission of the changes the developer agreed to be presented to the neighbor before
this council votes.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11036
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:01 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Letter of opposition GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 (Agenda items 8 and 9)
I am writing to oppose GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 (Agenda items 8 and 9) and request a continuance on both cases.
The surrounding community is still in discussions with Mr. Poulsen and Withey Morris on final density and heat
mitigation and the Vice Mayor has scheduled another meeting for us to try to finalize a plan that both the developer and
the community can live with Jan. 13. Due to the holidays, it has not been feasible to arrange an earlier meeting since our
last one Dec. 15.
The assertion you may hear from Withey Morris that they have been working with the neighbors on this project for a
year is not accurate. Withey Morris started dialog with the broader community surrounding this property only in the Fall
of 2021, with limited changes from the original plan submitted at the first SMVPC meeting.
For example, Adam Baugh included a timeline in his presentation to the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
that read in part:
“Proposed site plan developed through extensive outreach and input with surrounding residents, additional
changes after November SMVPC due to input from on ‐site neighbor meeting and follow ‐up conversations.”
The plan that was shown at the Dec. 14 SMVPC meeting was stamped by the City Planning Office Nov. 24, 5 days before
the first neighborhood meeting on‐site that he references. The changes on that plan were based on input from the
SMVPC, NOT the neighborhood meeting or follow up conversations. The neighbors need to be included in whatever
changes are made next.
The community would love to be done with this, but based on the last plan we have seen, it is simply not acceptable to
the existing neighbors. However, I am optimistic we can find compromise.
South Mountain is under tremendous pressure from developers, and we are swiftly losing the rural character and
agricultural practice that make it such a unique place to live. We have already bought our properties and built to
preserve that open, rural sense of place. We want to work with developers interested in building here to create
something that fits. We can make that happen but we need you to hold developers accountable to working in good faith
with the existing community. We can do it, but we need more time. Please vote to continue.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11037
Page 1038
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC; Arizona Republic; Helen Jewel Clark; mijosic@fastmail.fm;
JoAnne Jensen; Dianne & Ted Olivo; steamboat332@msn.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Arizona Republic;
AZleatherking@aol.com; Rebekah Higginbotham
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:18:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
I have to say I have not witnessed such obvious bias since I lived in the east coat.
Allowance for developers to speak
Commissioners asking developers how much time they needed and then offering citizens one
minute.
I am very concerned regarding our council members and the entre planning commission that seems
to support developers and have no respect to our citizens
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 4:53:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Good afternoon,
How are you? I hope you are doing well. I am reaching out in regards to case Z-31-21-8, scheduled
for tonight’s Planning Commission (PC) meeting, to inform you that the applicant has submitted an
updated site plan and landscape plan for this project. Staff has drafted an updated report
(Addendum B – please see attached) that reflects updates to the stipulations on the case that were
approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee in December of 2021.
This report will also be presented to the Planning Commission (PC) ahead of tonight’s meeting, in
addition to correspondence from the public received on this case.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this report.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
Page 1039
Report
21-8 - Southeast Corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Resolution
21990)
Request to hold a public hearing on a General Plan Amendment for the following item
to consider adopting the Planning Commission's recommendation and the related
Resolution if approved. This item is a companion case to Z-31-21-8 and must be heard
first, followed by Z-31-21-8.
Summary
Current Plan Designation: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
Proposed Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 49.50 acres
Reason for Change: Minor General Plan amendment to allow single-family detached
residential community
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard the case on Nov.
9, 2021 and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 8-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard the case on Dec. 2, 2021 and recommend
a continuance, by a vote of 8-0. The Planning Commission heard the case again on
Jan. 6, 2022 and recommended approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 12, 2022.
Location
Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Parcel Addresses: 1835 W. South Mountain Ave.
Page 986
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 987
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE 2015
GENERAL PLAN FOR PHOENIX, APPLICATION GPA-SM-2-21-8,
CHANGING THE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE
PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN.
____________
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The 2015 Phoenix General Plan, which was adopted by
Resolution 21307, is hereby amended by adopting GPA-SM-2-21-8. The 49.50-acre
site located at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue is
designated as Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
SECTON 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the 2015 Phoenix General Plan to reflect this land use classification change as
shown below:
Page 988
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February 2022.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
Page 989
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
By:___________________________
___________________________
REVIEWED BY:
______________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager
Page 990
Attachment B
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
STAFF ANALYSIS
November 5, 2021
Application: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue
Acreage: 49.50 acres
Current Plan Designation: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre (49.50
acres)
Requested Plan Designation: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre (49.50
acres)
Reason for Requested Change: Map Amendment to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre for a single-family residential
detached community
South Mountain Village Planning
Committee Date: November 9, 2021
Staff Recommendation: Approval
FINDINGS:
1) The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan
Amendment to the Land Use Map.
2) The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 2 to 3.5
dwelling units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
Page 991
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 2
3) The proposed land use designation is appropriate for a location adjacent to an
arterial street.
4) The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 includes standards that ensure
consistency in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent
single-family zoned property.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue and is presently vacant. The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 is
requesting to rezone the subject site from 49.52 acres of S-1 (Ranch or Farm
Residence District) to 49.52 acres of R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District) to allow a
new 160-lot single-family detached community. The development, as proposed by the
applicant, would allow a density up to 3.23 dwelling units per gross acre. The subject
site is located adjacent to an arterial street (19th Avenue) which connects to Baseline
Road, approximately 0.5 miles to the north, and Dobbins Road which is approximately
0.25 miles to the south.
RIO MONTAÑA AREA PLAN
In 2000, the City of Phoenix adopted the Rio Montaña Area Plan which encourages the
preservation of the rural character of the area and incorporates transition zones to
protect desert and open space areas. The plan also encourages pedestrian and
equestrian activities through a network of trails and aspires to develop a sense of
community while encouraging investment in the community.
The Rio Montaña Area Plan intends to accomplish this vision through seven goals that
pertain to: promoting high quality development, protecting and improving
neighborhoods, keeping a distinctive character, protecting the rural character, promoting
business development, developing a tourist industry, providing a variety of
transportation options.
The Rio Montaña Proposed Land Use Plan map designated the subject site as
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre, while the proposal is to allow Residential 2 to
3.5 dwelling units per acre. As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development
will incorporate wide perimeter lots along the north and east property lines, provide a
wide open space area along the western perimeter, require pitched roofs to be
incorporated in all buildings, incorporate one-story limitations and open view fencing
elements along the perimeter streets. These elements will help provide an appropriate
land use transition consistent with development patterns in the area, while furthering
many of the goals of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
Page 992
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 3
SURROUNDING LAND USES
The proposed general plan land use amendment is located in the southwest portion of
the South Mountain Village. North, west and east of the site, the General Plan Land Use
Map designation is a mix of Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre. An active General
Plan Land Use Map amendment request for Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
has been filed for a property at the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
South of the site, the General Plan Land Use Map designation is Residential 1 to 2
dwelling units per acre and Parks/Open Space – Publicly Owned.
Approximately 0.1 miles north of the site, along 19th Avenue, and further along Baseline
Road are properties designated Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre.
Furthermore, approximately 0.3 miles to the northwest and southeast of the site are
properties designated Residential 10 to 15 dwelling units per acre.
Other General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area include
Commercial, which allows multifamily development. These properties designated
Commercial are located approximately 0.25 miles to the south and 0.3 miles to the
north.
Proposed General Plan Land Use Map, Source: City of Phoenix
Page 993
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 4
RELATIONSHIP TO GENERAL PLAN CORE VALUES AND PRINCIPLES
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES
• OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels
of increased intensity, respectful of local conditions and surrounding
neighborhoods.
The proposal for a single-family detached residential community would allow
development of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses
in the area. As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development will
incorporate wide perimeter lots and open space areas, enhanced landscaping
and height restrictions, which will also help to provide a transition from the
proposed development to adjacent residential properties and to respect local
conditions.
• 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 for a single-family detached residential community, would allow
development of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses
in the area. An access point to the site is provided along 19th Avenue, an arterial
street, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS
• CLEAN NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate the
acquisition of vacant, underutilized and blighted parcels for appropriate
redevelopment, compatible with the adjacent neighborhood character and
adopted area plans.
As stipulated in Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8, the development will incorporate wide
perimeter lots and open space areas, enhanced landscaping and height
restrictions, which will help maintain an appropriate scale for the area.
Furthermore, design and appearance of the development will be promoted
through several stipulations that require enhanced landscaping, pitched roofed
buildings, and durable materials in building elevations.
• DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS; LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Include a mix of
housing types and densities where appropriate within each village that
support a broad range of lifestyles.
Approval of the request will allow the introduction of a single-family detached
community in an area where various residential densities exist. A range of zoning
districts exist in the area which include S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District),
Page 994
Staff Analysis
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Page 5
R1-18 (Single-Family Residence District) and R1-10 (Single-Family Residential
District). This proposed development will help to provide housing for a broader
range of lifestyles in the area.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of GPA-SM-2-21-8. The proposed land use map
designation of 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre is consistent in scale and character with
existing land uses in the surrounding area. The land use map designation, as
requested, would further diversify the land uses in this part of the South Mountain
Village in a manner consistent with development patterns based on the existing zoning
and General Plan Land Use Map designations in the general area. Furthermore, the
requested land use map designation provides a transition area between the larger lot
single-family residential community to the southeast and 19th Avenue, an arterial street.
As stipulated, the concurrent case Z-31-21-8 will enhance the compatibility and
consistency with the land use pattern in the surrounding area while furthering many of
the goals from the Rio Montaña Area Plan. Approval of the request, with concurrent
case Z-31-21-8, will support the development of this underutilized property with uses
that are compatible with the land use designations and zoning districts in the general
area.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Sketch Maps (2 pages)
Page 995
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-2-21-8_BW ACRES: 49.50 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 1-2 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
CityParcel
Proposed Change Area
Residential 1 to 2 du/acre
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/acre
Residential 10 to 15 du/acre SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Commercial
Public/Quasi-Public
E E E E E
E E E E EParks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
E E E E E
E E E E E
Mixed Use Agricultural
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 2-3.5 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/acre
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Page 996
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
CITY OF PHOENIX X PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT X 200 W WASHINGTON ST X PHOENIX, AZ X 85003X (602) 262-6882
APPLICATION NO: GPA-SM-2-21-8 ACRES: 49.50 +/-
VILLAGE: South Mountain COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8
APPLICANT: Benjamin Tate
EXISTING:
Residential 1-2 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
CityParcel
Proposed Change Area
Residential 1 to 2 du/ac
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
Residential 10 to 15 du/ac SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Commercial
Mixed Use Agricultural
Parks/Open Space - Publicly Owned
Public/Quasi-Public
PROPOSED CHANGE:
Residential 2-3.5 du/ac ( 49.50 +/- Acres)
19TH AVE
Proposed Change Area
Residential 2 to 3.5 du/ac
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
Page 997
Attachment C
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 9, 2021
Request To amend the General Plan Land Use Designation on
approximately 49.50 acres from Residential 1 to 2
dwelling units per acre to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in the staff report
VPC Vote 8-3 Motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Busching,
Shepard, Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor;
Members Brooks, Brownell, and Holmerud in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Three members
registered in opposition, one neutral, one in support with conditions and two in
support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation for the
Minor General Plan amendment case GPA-SM-2-21-8 and concurrent rezoning
case Z-31-21-8. He discussed the location of the site, noting surrounding land
uses, existing General Plan Land Use map designations, and the proposed
designation on the site. He discussed the existing zoning in the area and
requested zoning for the site. He discussed policy documents including the
General Plan and Rio Montaña Area Plan. The conceptual site plan for the
proposed single-family subdivision was shown, indicating vehicular plus
pedestrian access points, open space location, building height limitations, and lot
widths proposed. The conceptual building renderings were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation of approval for
both cases and describing the proposed stipulations for case Z-31-21-8, as
presented in the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the location and history of the site. He provided an overview of each
application, discussed the demand for housing, and surrounding zoning districts.
Page 998
He discussed the site plan, proposed project features such as fencing elements,
building renderings, goals and policies from the General Plan and Rio Montaña
Area Plan. An overview of issues related to health, safety, connectivity,
appearance, walls, and energy savings was provided. A summary of public
outreach was provided, including site plan revisions made to accommodate
drainage and other elements. Roadway and flooding-related issues were
discussed, in addition to a new rezoning stipulation proposed regarding
pedestrian access to the Western Canal from South Mountain Avenue. He
concluded the presentation by providing a summary of the project and requested
approval of both cases.
Lee Coleman and Fatima Said left the meeting at 9:05pm, bringing the quorum to
11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if the committee had any questions for the applicant
or staff regarding these cases.
Gene Holmerud stated that this site is not a compound in the area.
Kay Shepard would like to see off-setting of lots and curvilinear streets for a
better community. Mr. Baugh responded that his team could address the off-
setting of the lots.
Lee Coleman asked for clarification on the development option used. He
discussed the development standards. Mr. Baugh responded that the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) option was used, and the project will follow all
development standards.
Marcia Busching is not in favor of gated communities and asked the following
questions:
• Does staff have concerns with the additional stipulation proposed by the
applicant?
• Can the fencing plan be stipulated?
• Do irrigation facilities have to be undergrounded?
Mr. Bojórquez responded that a closer review of the new stipulation would be
needed to determine if any conflicts arise. The Street Transportation Department
provided the stipulation which requires the undergrounding and relocation of
existing irrigation facilities outside of the right-of-way.
Greg Brownell stated that Mr. Baugh’s staff have done a good job. However,
Minor General Plan Amendment cases should be heard first before the rezoning
case to actively plan land uses. This is a staff problem as this is a bad way to
plan, but Mr. Baugh has done what the committee and staff should be doing. The
General Plan case should not have a companion case since this promotes a
Page 999
suggestion on the land use. He will not vote in favor due to this procedure and
would reprimand staff if there was a formal way to do so.
Mr. Holmerud asked how water conservation was being considered. Mr. Baugh
responded that one of the stipulations limited the use of high-water use plants
such as turf.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked how the community concerns regarding the single-
story limitations was being addressed. Mr. Baugh responded that he would
agree that a minimum of 20-percent of the homes be kept at one-story.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Ms. Shepard’s comments.
Chairwoman Daniels asked of flood maps had been looked at in the area. Mr.
Baugh responded that flood maps were shared by Patti Trites and these were
reviewed. The canal bank and open space locations will help address flooding.
Chairwoman Daniels likes some gated communities. She asked if members of
the public wanted to speak on this case.
Jewel Clark, resident of the area, introduced herself and asked that staff no
longer share copies of presentation slides from the public with the developer
ahead of the meeting. She showed a brief presentation and discussed the
outcome of a previous rezoning case across the street, roadways, drainage, and
the Rio Montaña Area Plan. The area should remain with existing R1-18 and S-1
zoning. She discussed traffic and flooding issues at the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. She discussed a map depicting existing
zoning designations in the area and asked for these applications to be denied.
Mike Josic, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that in 2018 the
South Mountain VPC denied a similar rezoning request across 19th Avenue. He
asked for a 90-day continuance on the case to continue to work with the
developer. He lives in the area and would be affected. This project is not
appropriate here and liked the South Central TOD presentation. Tiny lots will
destroy the character of the area and do not reflect the existing character. There
was not enough time to meet with the developer, as he only participated once in
a virtual meeting about the project.
Erin Hegedus, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that 3 years
ago a similar conversation was had, and this project is not consistent with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan. She discussed proposed enhancements and lives across
the street from the project. She has not seen any planned improvements for the
site. She asked how this project will improve the community and stated that there
is a lack of trails now. Take a good look at this project as it will affect this
community and does not support this project.
Page 1000
Troy Gamm, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that this is a
good developer. This proposed project looks nice, has one-story limitations and
the main gate is along 19th Avenue. He supports this project.
Penny Gamm, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that this
project keeps the feel of the area. One-story homes are good and will help keep
the views, while allowing future residents a short commute to Downtown Phoenix
and providing good access for families. This builder is thoughtful on design and
provides a good housing product.
Steven Higginbotham, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that
he moved to this area because he enjoys recreation, and discussed the
comments made by the applicant regarding pedestrian and vehicular access. He
discussed the notification letter and feels that in general increasing the density of
the area is heading in the wrong direction. He discussed receiving the notification
letter recently and discussed his concerns.
Mr. Baugh stated that he met with Magdalena Estates early in the process and
the feedback received was incorporated from members of the public. He would
like to move forward in the process.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if he would consider continuing the cases. Mr.
Baugh responded that he has been working on these cases for 11 months now
and has incorporated much of the feedback received. He is unsure on what else
could be accomplished by continuing the cases.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that she is a native of Phoenix and has seen this
community grow. She expects it to continue growing into the future. She asked
for questions or further discussion from the committee.
MOTION – GPA-SM-2-21-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to approve case GPA-SM-2-21-8 per the staff
recommendation presented in the staff report. Ms. Shepard seconded the
motion to approve.
VOTE – GPA-SM-2-21-8:
8-3, motion passed; Members Aldama, Alvarez, Busching, Shepard, Smith,
Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor; Members Brooks, Brownell, and Holmerud
in dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 1001
Attachment D
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 8
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
Request: Map Amendment
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
From: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per acre
To: Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
Acreage: 49.50
Proposal: Minor General Plan Amendment to allow a single-family detached
residential community.
Applicant: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 11/9/2021 Approval, per the staff recommendation. Vote: 8-3.
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee recommendation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Bushing made a MOTION to approve GPA-SM-2-21-8, per the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommendation, with the additional stipulation as
read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. The subject site exceeds 10 acres, which requires a minor General Plan Amendment
to the Land Use Map.
2. The proposed General Plan Land Use Map designation of Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling
units per acre is compatible with surrounding land uses.
3. The proposed land use designation is appropriate for a location adjacent to an arterial
street.
Page 1002
4. The companion Rezoning Case Z-31-21-8 includes standards that ensure consistency
in scale and character as well as appropriate transitions for adjacent single-family
zoned property.
This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.
Page 1003
Attachment E
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ GPA-SM-2-21-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION (Continued from opposition x applicant
12/2/2021) and
Z-31-21-8
(Continued from
12/2/2021)
Southeast corner of
19th Avenue and
South Mountain
Avenue
PC January 6, 2020 West South Mountain Avenue
APPEALED FROM: 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85041
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC February 2, 2022
HEARING H. Jewel Clark
480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Doesn't conform to 2015 General Plan for density and rural character. Splits
contiguously zoned S-1 & R1-18 community. Does not preserve/enhance
neighborhood character and certainty for existing community. Negotiations are
ongoing between neighborhood and developer and approval as submitted is
premature.
RECEIVED BY: Nayeli Sanchez RECEIVED ON: January 12, 2022
Alan Stephenson Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Diana Hernandez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Page 1004
Page 1005
Attachment F
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-31-21) and Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA-SM-2-21), Kimura Gardens
Development
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:31:27 AM
Hello and good morning -
Thank you for accepting my comments.
The Providence group has been very active in its outreach to neighbors during the planning to
develop the property immediately south of Magdalena Estates, where we live - this is greatly
appreciated. And, to be fair, they have listened and been responsive to the majority of concerns.
Although I am a member of Magdalena Estate's HOA Board, I have no authority to speak on behalf of
the community or our Board, only for our lot 13.
We have several points to make:
Everyone knows that there will be development. We are lucky to have enjoyed our relative isolation
for as long as we have. So, the goal is to maintain the property values and quality of life for those
who already live here.
The configuration of Kimura Gardens will set an important precedent for the future of this area. The
originally presented number of homes was 178 and has been reduced to 150. Still, that is very
dense, and the effect upon traffic, light, and noise is going to be significant. Frankly, I would prefer
that the density be the same as Magdalena Estates and The Commons to assure continuity within
this area.
A discussion point during the planning process has been whether the homes will be one or two
stories. I understand the economic ramifications of all single story construction. But the quality of
life consequences are also important - more stories means more people, more cars, more light,
more noise - all of which mitigate against maintaining the current quiet that we who already live
here enjoy.
No one walks away completely satisfied. But, please consider that if all the homes in Kimura
Gardens were one story, this would set a good precedent for the future of this area, it would
equalize the property values among the three developments (The Commons, Magdalena Estates,
and Kimura Gardens), it would create a relatively more tranquil and safe environment.
In sum - if a condition of zoning approval is that all homes are single story, we in lot 13 endorse the
other aspects of the development plan as we understand them.
Thank you.
JoAnne Jensen (480-213-6499)
Page 1006
Steven D. Smith
8303 S. 17th Drive
Phoenix AZ 85041
Page 1007
From: Dan Martin
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fwd: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:12:50 PM
Enrique,
I would like to concur with my neighbor that a request for a space between the neighborhoods
would be welcomed. One of the main reasons that I purchased a home in The Commons
community was that the homes did not face another home to their rear. This is why I paid
$100K more than my previous home situated in Laveen. Would it be possible to change the
road frontage setback to the West on 19th Avenue from 150 feet to 140 feet in order to provide
a 10 foot space with a walking path between the two neighborhoods? This essentially would
not change the design of the Kumura Gardens but shift it 10 feet to the West.
Sincerely,
Dan Martin
8612 S 16th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
513-305-0258
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: larry Brown
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:48 PM
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
To:
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Page 1008
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1009
Attachment G
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: bassinby@msn.com; erintkhegedos@hotmail.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Companion Case Z-31-21-8):
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:26:47 PM
I am writing to request to speak to the referenced rezoning request by Providence Homes and
Newcastle Development.
I want to state in advance that although I would rather maintain the last of the agriculture that is left
in Phoenix, I know that ultimately the land will be developed.
I ask for consideration of the following:
An explanation of how the already exhausted infrastructure of South Mountain
Avenue, Dobbins Road and 19th Avenue would tolerate the approximately 300 + more
vehicles this development will create.
Currently, Dobbins Road, South Mountain Avenue and 19th Avenue are only two lane
roads surrounded by irrigation canals … In some areas of South Mountain Avenue, this
road reduces to one lane.
I am aware that the developer will present to the Council that there is a shortage of housing,,
however, there are hundreds of developments underway in this area code which would offset that
concern.
Additionally, I ask to respect the Rio Montana Plan that was strategically planned to maintain
the integrity of this neighborhood.
Higher density housing and lower cost housing are a conflict to that plan and would negatively
affect this neighborhood and any additional interest in retailers that might consider this area.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1010
From: Miguel Rubio
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens opposition lette
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:18:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique once again..
We are opposed to this project ,because it will affect us pretty bad, as we have a hard time getting
out of our property on 8020 s 20th ave , every time we get on the intersection of latona and 19th
ave , it takes forever for us to have access and having several hundred of vehicles is going to make it
worse.
That reason the we bough our property is because we like the rural life, and having all that people
living here next to us is going to affect me and my family.
The value on our property is going to decrease and is not what I want for me and my family.
We figth it over this with mister ward on the opposite corner, and this is going to be the same we
are a really good community , we stay together and this is what we want for our kids and grandkids.
This is one of the last places the still have the opportunity to have this privacy and this people is
trying to take it from us.
We are not opposed of them building we just wanted to preserve large lots and low density.
I am pretty sure that you guys would do the same for your family.
Thank you very much and have a great day.
MIGUEL RUBIO
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 2OTH AVE
PHX,AZ 85041
(602) 366 9334
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Miguel Rubio
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens
Good morning Miguel,
How are you? You may email me your opposition letter in regards to this project (Case Nos. GPA-SM-
Page 1011
2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8).
Let me know if questions arise.
Thank you!
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura gardens
Hello Enrique, this is MIGUEL RUBIO.
I would like to know where can I send my opposition letter to..?
Rb contracting llc
8020 s 20th Ave
Phoenix az, 85041
602 366 9334
Page 1012
Racelle Escolar
From: Robin Shared
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 12:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Hello,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Kimura Gardens development at the intersection of
South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue. Some of these concerns are specific to this development and its
developer (Providence Homes), while others, especially traffic and flood management, relate to both Kimura
Gardens and to the area as a whole including other developments in planning stages.
For the reasons below, I'm requesting more time for the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns about this development and the way the approvals process
has functioned thus far.
Providence Homes proposes to build a development on about 49 acres with at least 160 units at the SE corner
of 19th Ave and South Mountain Lane.
The busiest corner of South Mountain lane is the northeast corner where Magdalena Estates development has
26 houses. Immediately east of the proposed location for Kimura Gardens is another Providence Homes
development, The Commons, which has 35-40 homes. The northwest corner has 3 houses and the southwest
corner is open land.
There is no way that 160 units in the middle of this community will not have a serious impact that goes far
beyond obliterating the very real neighborhood character that Providence Homes claims to respect.
South Mountain Lane is a very busy stretch of multipurpose road that includes traffic from pedestrians,
bicycles and equestrians in addition to a wide variety of vehicle traffic from Mini Coopers to large scale farm
equipment.
Improvements are needed to make this area safe for the wide variety of foot, bike, horse and vehicle traffic that
are already exists. Simply widening the road will not be sufficient, as functional wide paths are needed to safely
separate the volume of diverse traffic the area already gets.
Adding at least 160 vehicles to this area will be an immediate and serious unsafe impact on everyone who
uses this street.
Flooding off of South Mountain is an ongoing issue in the area as a whole and especially at the intersection of
19th Ave and South Mountain Lane. This intersection is not safe to drive through in any amount of rain, which
at times will flood not only the intersection but much of 19th Ave north of the intersection.
Replacing what is currently a highly absorbant cotton field on the southeast with houses, streets and driveways
will significantly impact water movement in this area which must be considered and safely managed to protect
drivers on 19th Ave as well as the existing properties that surround the area.
This is especially a concern given that the developer representative claimed in the November 9 meeting that
he doesn't have up to date flood maps because he hasn't been "given them." (This despite multiple attempts to
rush the process).
We absolutely do not want a development going in near us that threatens our safety in multiple ways, as
Kimura Gardens currently does by proposing to more than double the drivers at this intersection without
Page11013
making plans for traffic or flooding, let alone showing any awareness or respect for the community's semi-rural
zoning and lifestyles.
The developer has also told multiple people in the community that Providence Homes will show their respect
for the community by committing to single story buildings, to following the Rio Montana plans and to minimal
zoning increases - yet in meetings, he proposes increasing units per lot to 3.5 (instead of 2) and showed
multistory buildings with garage prominent designs. The developer's representative also responded with
noticeable aggravation to questions about the multiple significant deviations from he Rio Montana plans they
claim to be following and to questions about the discrepancies between the several different lot layouts shown
and the inconsistent representation of green areas which make evaluating the plans for lot size, unit size and
responsible water management impossible.
In addition to my concerns about Kimura Gardens and about large scale development in the South Mountain
Village area, I have serious concerns about the procedures and transparency of the Nov 9 zoning meeting.
In this meeting, the developer took intellectual property from community members and incorporated it into his
presentation with the aid of the staff who set up the meeting and shared her materials without her knowledge
or consent, while in turn the developer's presentation materials were not made available to other
commenters by the staff.
This is highly concerning - as are the multiple procedural irregularities noted by board members throughout the
meeting and especially during this presentation. Procedural concerns included (but were not limited to) the
developer's presentation being submitted late, the board members not having a chance to review the material,
the developer rushing approval process steps and trying to piggyback additional approvals into the process
and other breaks with procedure for the process and for the meeting itself.
The impression given to the audience was that participation in the approval process is not equal or transparent
and that many of the board members are willing to skip following procedure and not listen to the board
members who are concerned about following the rules laid out for equity and transparency.
Best,
Rebekah
Page21014
Racelle Escolar
From: Gina Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 3:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Southmountainand19th@gmail.com
Subject: 12/2/21 comment for Item 4. GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello,
I am a resident of Magdalena Estates, adjacent to the general plan amendment
consideration for Kimura Gardens at 19th Ave and South Mountain Ave, Item 4:
GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Item 3: Companion Case Z-31-21-8) . I would like to appeal to
the committee to ensure the general plan submitted aligns to the City plan of Rio
Montana recommendations and continue this request by sending back to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further review, community
discussion, and planning.
Rio Montana plan states the closer to South Mountain the lesser the density. I
believe this property should be zoned as R1-18 to support 2.34 (with bonus)
units/acre rather than the proposed R1-10 that would put 3.25 units/acre. This is
too dense for this rural area. I understand the growth of Phoenix, but we must
maintain quality of rural life in one of the few places in Phoenix it's still found
while maintaining mountain view property values. The developer has much to do
still to support the Rio Montana plan and enhance the South Mountain area, not
continue to reduce it.
Additionally, the staff for the South Mountain Village (SMV) Planning Committee
handled this process poorly by trying to rush through the GPA and the rezoning
at the same time with insufficient time for review by the SMV Planning Committee
and the Public. Not allowing the neighborhood to provide input on the GPA.
Thankfully, the committee recognized this poor management and continued the
zoning process.
It is not often I would submit my comment but I care for this community, the
resale values. and continued uplifting and improvement of South Phoenix areas.
Please consider not approving this General Amendment Plan and send it back to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. As of 11/29/21 the developer
didn't have an amended plan to share with the community or to present to you. I
think they need more time to complete their plan and I ask that you, at minimum,
continue this request for the developer to submit an adjusted plan.
Thank you,
Gina Johnson
Magdalena Estates
1816 W. Magdalena Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041
bakergmb@gmail.com
Page11015
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:13 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
I'm commenting as a community resident near where Kimura Gardens will be built, to ask that the approval process be
slowed.
There are several concerns about this development that have yet to be answered, including safety issues for current
residents and future residents. The infrastructure in this area is simply not prepared for 160 units and the estimated
300+ more drivers that would accompany them. The intersection at South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue is already
overwhelmed with just two neighborhoods under 40 units each, as is South Mountain Lane, which is barely a lane and a
half.
Our community supports development that follows zoning R1‐18 and layouts like that in the Rio Montana Plan.
I believe more time would allow the community, the city and the developer to work together to find solutions to
the concerns.
Sincerely,
Steven Higginbotham
‐‐
Steven Higginbotham
Page11016
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:21 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8
I am writing to address my concerns with the referenced plan as it does not conform to the Rio Montana Plan that was
purposely thought out to maintain the integrity of this unique are in Phoenix. There are few areas of this density and
agriculture presence in the valley and once developed will never return.
Among my concerns are the following:
Alleys for rear entry garages (indicated in the Rio Montana Plan for R1-10 and lower density)
Side entry garages if not all areas can have alleys
Any garages left that are font-facing have a minimum 10' setback to the front of the house. All of the
facade examples have front facing garages that are or are nearly 50% of the front of the house. This is
a no-no.
Actual porches on all home designs. This is in the stipulations by the city planning staff but not reflected
in the housing design examples. That said, the staff does not recommend adherence to those designs.
Staggered lot sizes side by side. The RM Plan specifically calls for lot widths to vary in an alternating
pattern, for example: 55ft, 65ft, 55ft, 65ft, etc. As laid out, the current site design groups the same sized
lots together.
Commitment to drought tolerant/native trees on properties and not just in the open spaces to mitigate
heat island effect.
Shaded sidewalks within the development and not just on the perimeter landscaping
Preserve irrigation (this was a subject requested/asked about by one of the committee members)
LEED building practices
Additionally, and most importantly to me, the infrastructure does not support the current traffic, let alone the
additional traffic that the request for increased density will bring to the area.
I ask for you to look at this request with the eyes that believe in maintaining unique neighborhoods in Phoenix.
Thank you.
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11017
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:44 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Comments for Item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8 - City of Phoenix Planning Commission meeting- Dec. 2, 2021
Agenda item #4, Case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to oppose the approval, at this meeting, of case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8, which changes the zoning of 49.5 acres on
the southeast corner of 19th Ave. and West South Mountain Ave. from S‐1 to R1‐10 and request that it be returned to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further discussion in conjunction with its companion case Z‐31‐21‐8.
My husband and I have our home at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and we have owned that property since Nov. 2009.
We purchased in the area for the larger lots, custom homes, and equestrian/rural character of the South Mountain area.
While we are not opposed to development, we and our neighbors strongly believe that the design and planning
guidelines of the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and the Rio Montana Plan be adhered to‐ just as we have adhered to them‐
when any new development is proposed. That plan, and the future certainty that it provided, factored highly in our
decision to buy our property here.
Mr. John Poulsen of Providence Homes has requested a zoning density of R1‐10 that is flatly incompatible with the
neighborhood character of the surrounding area and in an area with a known history of street flooding and undeveloped
infrastructure. That said, Mr. Poulsen does seem to be working in good faith with the neighbors to try and find
compromise, and we welcome that. However, there is much that is still up in the air. Mr. Poulsen and Ben Tate from
Withey Morris met for the first time since the SMVPC meeting just this Monday, Nov. 28, with the neighbors to hear our
concerns and our ideas. We felt the conversation was productive, but they have not had time to draft any changes to the
site plan to present or have additional dialog with the neighbors as of this letter.
The companion case Z‐31‐21‐8 was not approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee because there was
a lack of adherence to the Rio Montana Plan, many neighbors were opposed‐ citing very real concerns about
neighborhood character, home values, and inadequate infrastructure for traffic and flooding‐ and that the city planning
staff did not submit their documents until the Friday before the meeting, providing inadequate time for the public and
the committee to thoughtfully review the proposal.
I respectfully request that GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 remain with its companion case Z‐31‐21‐8 at the South Mountain Village
Planning Committee in the approval process and only move forward once Mr. Poulsen and the neighbors have had more
time to work together and resolve the development concerns therein.
Jewel Clark
2020 West South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480.664.9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11018
Racelle Escolar
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
We live in Magdalena Estates, a group of homes immediately north of the planned Kimura Gardens development.
First – thanks to the Poulson group for engaging in ongoing conversations with us and our neighbors to best work out
how we all can be comfortable with inevitable change. They have been very attentive and have been patiently willing to
modify their plans.
In fact, a sizable group of neighbors met with Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate on the afternoon of Monday (11/29) at the
planned Kimura Gardens site to review our collective wants and needs. And, as of this writing, a telephonic conference
call is being scheduled for later this week.
Which brings me to my second, and main, point. The review process for these two requests (which go hand in hand) is
so compressed that it is ahead of the ongoing evolution of the plan. In other words, there has been no time to formalize
the modifications. This is not the fault of the Planning Commission or of any governmental organization, it is just a
timing issue. And timing issues can easily be remedied by taking a time out, which by no means is the same as denying a
request.
This is my request – can we please return to the Village Planning level with both requests and take a breath before any
further formal action is taken? We need this to give us a chance to help prepare the best possible development plan
which will be acceptable to the largest number of people and to present a concrete proposal rather than an ever
changing and amorphous concept. Procedurally and administratively, it makes most sense is these two requests are
kept in synch. Just as it makes the most sense for all the details to be in place before the concept it approved.
There is no one with whom I have spoken who opposes development, if the density and home sizes / construction are
consonant with The Commons and Magdalena Estates. We know growth and change are coming and, when properly
done, will bring benefits for everyone. The willingness of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate to sit and discuss and listen is
impressive and I am confident that by encouraging the design guidelines from the Rio Montana Plan for this area, the
Poulson group will find support. We purchased our home because of the demographics, the lot sizes, the quality of
construction, and the quiet rural nature of Magdalena Estates. Our goal is to continue that quality of life.
Thank you for considering my remarks. Based on comments from other neighbors, I can safely say that this represents
the perspectives of the majority of our community.
Page11019
Racelle Escolar
From: Dianne Olivo
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
I am directly across from this proposed project.
I am opposed to the rezoning of agriculture property it should remain as zoned agriculture And 1 dwelling per acre for
following reasons:
# 1 Density would increase strain on already stretched water resources especially during drought. There should be an
impact study of the water use and needs as well as all the other reasons i.e. traffic and especially the pollution impact of
adjacent neighbor to south (produces methane gas) into the air.
2‐ buildout irrigation throughout development to each 1 acre lot and increase pricing to offset.
3‐ Bottom line there is no proven need for more nondescript housing anywhere currently. especially taking out valuable
agricultural quickly disappearing land to be paved under asphalt adding to our climate change and O‐Zone problems
that’s why we have zoning and hopefully responsible people on the board
Dianne Olivo
TDRANCH
8804 S 19th Ave
Page11020
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
To: Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:45:30 PM
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
Best,
Rebekah
Page 1021
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 10:18:14 PM
Hello,
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
.
Steven Higginbotham
1804 w Magdalena Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1022
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; trentchristopher@gmail.com; Marcia Busching; twanna.bhna@yahoo.com; Greg Brownell;
edward@yourgreatestself.com; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: REquest to speak and comment: Z-31-21-8 GPA-SM-3-21-8
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:05:57 PM
Dear Enrique
I would like to register to at tomorrow's SMVPC.
I would like to also speak for Agenda Item # 6 & 7 for Z-31-21-8 companion case GPA -SM -
3-21-8
- Thank you in advance for contacting the Maricopa County Flood Control District and
looking at the flood maps of this property.
- Thank you also for keeping the entrance and exit into this new proposed community
off of 19th Avenue.
19th Avenue is the entrance to the South Mountain Trailhead: 19th Ave. (Ma-Ha-Tauk)
Trailhead at 10484 S. 19th Ave.
Per the COP own site: At more than 16,000 acres, South Mountain Park/Preserve is one of
the largest municipally managed parks in the nation and consists
of three mountain ranges - the Ma Ha Tauk, Gila and Guadalupe. The park boasts more
than 50 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding and mountain
biking. Additionally, the roadways throughout the park are a favorite for bicyclists.
- Safety and the beauty of South Mountain should be maintained as new development
happens in the area.
Many people - residents and visitors - utilize 19th Avenue as their entrance onto South
Mountain Trailhead.
Keep it safe. Do not allow entrance or exits onto 19th avenue for new developments.
- Flood Control and COP are also planning on a 66" storm drain pipe and catch basins
along 19th Avenue to South Mountain.
Keep 19th Avenue free of resident traffic as possible for safety.
- Please keep the South Mountain Area looking complementary to its surroundings;
1. Avoid block walls 'prison' effect around the new communities.
2. Please include plenty of plants/trees and Decorative Iron Fencing to surround the new
developments.
3. Please have interior green space for the new residents.
These three items - when done correctly - will enhance the area and match the unique
South Mountain Preserve Area.
Lets keep South Mountain Preserve beautiful.
Thank you.
Patti Trites
Homeowner at South Mountain
President of Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Page 1023
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1024
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura - case Z-31-21-8 (GPA-SM-2-21-8 is currently continued)
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 6:45:09 PM
I am asking for a continuance to this case.
The developer has recently met with the community but has submitted to the Council a different
plan that was discussed. I believe this project is being accelerated without documentation on what
the community is asking in order to maintain the character and diversity of our neighborhood.
I am extremely concerned with how the infrastructure is going to support this development in
addition to the existing, let alone the new homes that are currently under construction on South
Mountain Avenue and Dobbins Road.
These roadways are 1 to 2 lane roads that currently cannot support the traffic, I ask that you
consider this, and before approving further development, conduct a study plan in advance to
understand the impact, not only on the traffic but the heat island this and other developments are
creating.
Respectfullly,
Erin Hegedus
8630 South 19th Avenue
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1025
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8 Continuance Recommendation
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:54:18 PM
Hello -
This is to request a continuance for item Z-31-21-8, to rezone the 49.5 acre parcel on the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain to R1-18.
The community is in ongoing discussions with the Providence group, who is developing this parcel.
The current stipulations do not and will likely not be reflected in the final proposal, when all is said
and done. It is my feeling that the South Mountain Village Planning Committee should have the
opportunity to review the final version and make its recommendation to the Planning Commission
based on something that is more than notional.
We thank the Providence group for their time and attention to the neighbors and hope that we are
nearing completion of our talks.
We also believe that there is no harm done by taking a deep breath; by taking our time, we will get it
right rather than rushing into something which is ill-conceived and which may have unintended
consequences.
Please add me to the list of those requesting a continuance. A continuance is not a rejection, nor
does it equate with opposition. We know there will be development, we just want to be sure it is
appropriate to this area.
Thank you all very much for your efforts on behalf of our unique rural community.
JoAnne Jensen
8303 S. 17th Drive (Magdalena Estates)
Phoenix AZ 85041
480-213-6499
Page 1026
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:40 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Opposition to Cases GPA-SM-3-21-8 and Z-58-21-8 - SMVPC meeting Dec. 14, 2021
Hi Enrique,
Thank you! Here's my letter for Kimura.
Opposition to case Z‐31‐21‐8, agenda item #6
I am writing in opposition to the Kimura Gardens development project (case number referenced above) and to
request a continuance for the reasons stated here.
Despite the committee voting to approve the General Plan Amendment (case GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8), both plans are
overwhelmingly opposed by the surrounding community for the principal reason that the density is wholly
inappropriate for our area in addition to issues of traffic, flooding, and heat island concerns that have not
been addressed. Since the last committee meeting there have been other developments that keep the
community opposed to the plan as submitted.
We've had some challenges in working with Withey Morris and Mr. Poulsen to find common ground.
The Vice Mayor is aware of the neighborhood's concerns and has arranged a meeting, which he will attend, for
the neighbors and Mr. Poulsen/Withey Morris to talk through our outstanding issues with this development.
That meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, Dec. 15. A continuance until such talks are complete is respectfully
requested.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
On Tue, Dec 14, 2021, at 8:16 AM, Enrique A Bojorquez‐Gaxiola wrote:
Good morning Jewel,
How are you? Thank you for sending over the following information on these two cases. I will save a
copy in the case file and will share it with the South Mountain VPC as well.
By the way, the Chair has agreed to hear your presentation tonight. I would anticipate maybe 2 minutes
for the presentation, but she will assign the actual time to all speakers.
Page 1027
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: December 14: SMVPC Meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:45:32 AM
Attachments: Outlook-rmpvn2ah.png
Outlook-o00zkkho.png
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola:
I have been a South Mountain resident and homeowner for 9.5 years. I registered for the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting on December 14th and would like to
comment if possible. In case I cannot speak, I’m documenting my opposition to three
rezoning items. The Committee should disapprove rezoning to increase the number of
residential units. The proposed changes will cause excessive vehicle traffic and congestion on
the local streets. The new homes currently under construction in the surrounding area are
not even fully built yet, and there is already much traffic at the intersection where 19th
Avenue meets Dobbins Road. Many of the streets in the rezoning area were built as "country
roads" -- not meant for higher-density residential developments. In the future, there should
be a new traffic study when the latest homes along the Dobbins corridor (7th Avenue to Loop
202) are occupied.
The right developers for this land should integrate their plans within the current zoning. The
South Mountain area is a unique and historic location, and it is quickly becoming a generic
bedroom community with roads not built to meet the needs of higher-volume residential
developments.
_____________________________________________
Z-31-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-2-21-8)- OPPOSE
GPA-SM-3-21-8 (Companion Case Z-58-21-8)- OPPOSE
Z-58-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-3-21-8)- OPPOSE
_____________________________________________
Dean Chiarelli, Mobile phone 702-994-8077
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page 1028
Racelle Escolar
From: Dean Chiarelli
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:24 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: SMVPC Meeting January 6th - Opposition Notice
To South Mountain Village Planning Committee:
Re: Meeting Thursday, January 6th
I am strongly opposed to the items indicated below and request to speak.
Case numbers GPA‐SM‐3‐21‐8 and Z‐58‐21‐8 (Agenda items 2 and 3).
Case numbers GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 (Agenda items 8 and 9).
I am opposed to the items because of excessive congestion on surface roads. The SMVPC is authorizing
excessive approvals of rezoning in the area in tandem with a lack of new cultural amenities/ businesses to
enhance quality of life in the area. The rural character of the area is rapidly changing for the worst, and this is
against the City of Phoenix planning codes and Food Plan for South Phoenix. I respectfully request an updated
traffic study which includes activity for homes currently under construction in the Dobbins Corridor. There are
new homes along Dobbins Road from 16th Street all the way to the Loop 202 which aren't even built yet that
will increase the congestion.
I also want to express concern the Chair of the Committee stated in the December 2021 meeting that she is a
Realtor who grew up in South Phoenix. There is an appearance of bias towards approval of higher‐density
residential zoning for which the Chair may personally benefit.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page11029
Racelle Escolar
From: rob@copperstatemetals.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 items 8 and 9
4 JAN 2022
Honorable Planning Commission Members:
We are writing to voice our opposition to the Kimura development as it currently stands. Our concerns are the increase
in traffic on streets which are already used beyond their capacity. By any definition, portions of South Mountain Ave.
and 15th Ave. are only one lane and poorly maintained. Additionally the intersection of South Mountain and 19th Ave.
is already dangerous and will only get worse with the addition of well over 100 homes in this development alone. We
would also ask the Commission to consider the effect on the property values of the current residents. Most lots are 1/4
acre and more in the area, and most homes are well over 2200 sf as well as single story only. Allowing smaller homes on
smaller lots will only exacerbate the current traffic and drainage issues in the area and negatively impact the property
values of the established residents in order to allow the developers to make more money. This is not good for the
community and it is not just. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Respectfully,
Robert D. Barnes
Geniveve R. Tapia
8312 S. 18th Lane
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11030
Racelle Escolar
From: azleatherking
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:19 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Kimura project 19th ave
My name is Don Olson, and I own 8640 s 19ave, across the street from the proposed Kimura project. I am vehemently
opposed to the density of homes being asked for by the developer. This area is ag/residential, and the infrastructure
does not support what is here now, much less adding 150 houses.
GPA‐sm‐2‐21‐8
Z‐31‐21‐8
Don olson 8640 s 19 ave, phx 85041
602 434 5641
Sent from my T‐Mobile 4G LTE Device
Page11031
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z‐31‐21‐8 and GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 (aka
Kimura Gardens) on the following grounds: discussions between discussions between the community and the
developers are ongoing and the currently submitted stipulations are not only inconsistent with those conversations but
also inadequate for the safety and quality of life of this community.
Best,
Rebekah
Page11032
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z‐31‐21‐8 and GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 (aka
Kimura Gardens) on the following grounds: discussions between discussions between the community and the
developers are ongoing and the currently submitted stipulations are not only inconsistent with those conversations but
also inadequate for the safety and quality of life of this community.
‐‐
Steven Higginbotham
Page11033
Racelle Escolar
From: Ravi Sharma
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:03 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: Item # 2 and Case # GPA-SM-3-21-8, Item #3 and Case # Z-58-21-8, Item # 8 and Case #GPA-SM-2-21-8
(Continued from 12/2/2021), Item # 9 and Case #
Z‐31‐21‐8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
We are opposed to the proposed changes.
Dr. Ravi and Mrs. Snigdha Sharma
Page11034
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:08 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 / Kimura Gardens
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
My name is JoAnne Jensen, our address is 8303 So. 17th Drive, Phoenix AZ 85041; this is in Magdalena Estates, which is to the immediate north of
the parcel which the Providence group wishes to develop, and which is the subject of the two requests, named above.
I have been one of two points of contact between the South Mountain neighbors and the Providence group and thank Mr. Poulsen, Ben Tate, and
Adam Baugh of the Providence group for their patient attention throughout our discussions.
It is important to note that these discussions are ongoing and in fact, the present stipulations are out of date with current conversations and likely
agreements. What we need more than anything is a continuation so that we can maintain progress toward resolving our remaining differences.
If a continuation is not granted, then I cannot support the current stipulations, particularly the absence of robust heat mitigation measures and the
presence of a high number of dwellings. To be very specific – this is not an objection to the development, or to a future agreement regarding
stipulations, but solely to the current stipulations – density and absence of heat mitigation efforts.
General consensus within this community is that responsible development in the face of climate change and the proximity of the warmest location
in Phoenix must necessarily include heat mitigation efforts. One might argue that heat mitigation efforts on one 50 acre development will make no
difference – but this is the kind of argument which has led to today’s problems with excessive heat and parching conditions. Absent sufficient
stipulations, this plan is unacceptable.
Neighbors do not object to development, per se, however we feel it should be in keeping with the Rio Montana general plan, which was in place
when we each decided to invest in this rural and agricultural part of town. There is a general sense that the concerns of current residents and
business owners are being set aside to meet economic interests of the developer. We would not have objected to R1‐18 zoning. Indeed, we would
not have objected to R1‐18 with bonus, which would have enabled 114 dwellings, as that is similar to the two adjacent developments, The
Commons (which, incidentally, is also a Providence development) and Magdalena Estates. However, we do not support the building of 156 homes,
as the stipulation currently reads. Mr. Poulsen and the Providence group have argued that they have been making many concessions – from two
stories to one, from 180 units to 173 to 156, and these are appreciated. However, the neighbors likewise feel that density beyond R1‐18 with
bonus is a significant concession.
We are concerned that the last City traffic study in this area with in the 2012 – 2013 timeframe. Since then, quite a few homes have been built and
we believe that the addition of this development at the currently requested density will lead to even more traffic congestion than we already
experience. At present, the thoroughfares are woefully inadequate to support this level of growth and developers are required to improve only
the lengths of pavement parallel to the development property line. We believe that the lack of uniformity will not be sufficient to provide safe and
uncongested traffic flows on either 19th Avenue or South Mountain.
In summary – my primary request is that the Planning Commission issues a continuation for the two above‐referenced requests so that the
neighbors and the Providence group can pursue ongoing discussions and come to a reasonable resolve. Again, we do not object to development,
per se, but we request time to achieve this goal.
Thank you for your time and attention.
JoAnne Jensen
Cell – 480‐213‐6499
Email – joannejensen@cox.net
Page11035
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:47 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
I am writing to request a continuance of the referenced. We have had very promising negotiations with the developer,
however, we ask that a formal submission of the changes the developer agreed to be presented to the neighbor before
this council votes.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page11036
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:01 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Letter of opposition GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 (Agenda items 8 and 9)
I am writing to oppose GPA‐SM‐2‐21‐8 and Z‐31‐21‐8 (Agenda items 8 and 9) and request a continuance on both cases.
The surrounding community is still in discussions with Mr. Poulsen and Withey Morris on final density and heat
mitigation and the Vice Mayor has scheduled another meeting for us to try to finalize a plan that both the developer and
the community can live with Jan. 13. Due to the holidays, it has not been feasible to arrange an earlier meeting since our
last one Dec. 15.
The assertion you may hear from Withey Morris that they have been working with the neighbors on this project for a
year is not accurate. Withey Morris started dialog with the broader community surrounding this property only in the Fall
of 2021, with limited changes from the original plan submitted at the first SMVPC meeting.
For example, Adam Baugh included a timeline in his presentation to the South Mountain Village Planning Committee
that read in part:
“Proposed site plan developed through extensive outreach and input with surrounding residents, additional
changes after November SMVPC due to input from on ‐site neighbor meeting and follow ‐up conversations.”
The plan that was shown at the Dec. 14 SMVPC meeting was stamped by the City Planning Office Nov. 24, 5 days before
the first neighborhood meeting on‐site that he references. The changes on that plan were based on input from the
SMVPC, NOT the neighborhood meeting or follow up conversations. The neighbors need to be included in whatever
changes are made next.
The community would love to be done with this, but based on the last plan we have seen, it is simply not acceptable to
the existing neighbors. However, I am optimistic we can find compromise.
South Mountain is under tremendous pressure from developers, and we are swiftly losing the rural character and
agricultural practice that make it such a unique place to live. We have already bought our properties and built to
preserve that open, rural sense of place. We want to work with developers interested in building here to create
something that fits. We can make that happen but we need you to hold developers accountable to working in good faith
with the existing community. We can do it, but we need more time. Please vote to continue.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
2020 W. South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
‐‐
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11037
Page 1038
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC; Arizona Republic; Helen Jewel Clark; mijosic@fastmail.fm;
JoAnne Jensen; Dianne & Ted Olivo; steamboat332@msn.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Arizona Republic;
AZleatherking@aol.com; Rebekah Higginbotham
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:18:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
I have to say I have not witnessed such obvious bias since I lived in the east coat.
Allowance for developers to speak
Commissioners asking developers how much time they needed and then offering citizens one
minute.
I am very concerned regarding our council members and the entre planning commission that seems
to support developers and have no respect to our citizens
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 4:53:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Good afternoon,
How are you? I hope you are doing well. I am reaching out in regards to case Z-31-21-8, scheduled
for tonight’s Planning Commission (PC) meeting, to inform you that the applicant has submitted an
updated site plan and landscape plan for this project. Staff has drafted an updated report
(Addendum B – please see attached) that reflects updates to the stipulations on the case that were
approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee in December of 2021.
This report will also be presented to the Planning Commission (PC) ahead of tonight’s meeting, in
addition to correspondence from the public received on this case.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this report.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
Page 1039
Report
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
Item text
Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-31-21-8 -
Southeast Corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-
6959)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-31-21-
8 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to R1-10 (Single-
Family Residence District) to allow a single-family detached residential community.
This file is a companion case and must be heard following GPA-SM-2-21-8.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 49.52 acres
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential community
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
9, 2021 and recommended a continuance by a vote of 9-2. The South Mountain
Village Planning Committee heard this case again on Dec. 14, 2021 and recommend
approval, per the staff recommendation per the Addendum A Staff Report with a
modified stipulation, by a vote of 7-3-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended a continuance, by a vote of 8-0. The Planning Commission heard this
case on Jan. 6, 2022 and recommend approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with
an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 12, 2022.
Location
Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Page 1040
Parcel Addresses: 1835 W. South Mountain Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 1041
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-31-21-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 49.52-acre site located at the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue in a portion of Section 6, Township
1 South, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed
from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “R1-10” (Single-Family Residence
District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 1042
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped January 6, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any
required canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as
open space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry
features, shall be provided along the western perimeter property line
along 19th Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-
inch caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees,
20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to one story and 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design
Review, including 75-foot-wide lots, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent
materials and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as
brick, stone, colored textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to
provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment.
Page 1043
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall
provide a covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60
square feet in area at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall
terminate within the plane of a door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit
(landscape plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified
by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is
adjacent to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination
of solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion
of the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots
along South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots
along South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet
solid and topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides
planted with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a
minimum of 250-square feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described
below and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of
the site via a centralized pathway.
Page 1044
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-
foot wide pedestrian pathway that connects the development with
the sidewalk at 19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the
street intersection. This pathway shall be constructed of
decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or similar alternative material. The landscaped
tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a
minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent groupings, along both
sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide
landscape tract and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material.
(6) The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Western
Canal along the southeastern property line and pedestrian access
along both 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. The
pedestrian shall be connected to the internal pedestrian pathways
by accessible sidewalks.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10
percent of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf
or high-water use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common
open space areas, including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping
located within private yards on individual lots.
11. Open space areas shall be in general conformance with the landscape plan
date stamped January 6, 2022, as modified by the stipulations and
incorporating the following amenities, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic
table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Page 1045
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum
five-foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb
and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
along the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide
multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an
alternate design for this requirement through the technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the
east side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south
half of South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
Page 1046
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to
the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner
of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
shall be undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact
SRP to identify existing land rights and establish appropriate process to
relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural uses. These documents must advise
purchasers that, under Section 3-112(E), Arizona Revised Statues, the City of
Phoenix may not declare an agricultural operation conducted on farmland to be
a nuisance if the agricultural activity use is lawful, customary, reasonable, safe
and necessary to the agriculture industry. The form and content of such
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation.
22. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclosure to purchasers of property within the development the existence and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Regional Police Academy Gun
Range. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed by the City
prior to recordation.
23. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
24. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed
by the City Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
Page 1047
25. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
26. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
27. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad
along northbound 19th Avenue towards the south end of the site. The bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260
with a minimum depth of 10 feet.
28. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
Page 1048
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 1049
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-31-21-8
PARCEL NO. 1:
LOT 6 OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,
RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
PARCEL NO. 2:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY;
THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SAID CORNER BEING MARKED WITH A CONCRETE
MONUMENT;
THENCE WEST (ASSUMEDBEARING) ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 938.38 FEET TO A
POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 3 MINUTES WEST ALONG A FENCE 1296.60 FEET
TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES 47 MINUTES EAST ALONG THE NORTHWEST
SIDE OF A DITCH 660.05 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID
DITCH 250.40 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID
DITCH 596.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, SAID POINT BEING
MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 16 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 142.93
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
THE WESTERN CANAL.
Page 1050
Page 1051
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District)
(49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
(49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per
acre
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-SM-2-21-8): Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
19th Avenue Arterial Street 33-foot east half street
Street Map Classification South 0-foot south half street
Mountain Local Street (roadway easement widths
Avenue vary)
Page 1052
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Promote neighborhood identity
through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping and character of the area.
Each new development should contribute to the character identified for the village.
As stipulated, the development will promote neighborhood identity by incorporating density
and building height limitations, landscape enhancements, large perimeter lots, and
decorative fencing, among other enhancements. These will also promote the agrarian
character of the area and vision of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for a single-family detached residential community would allow development
of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses in the area. As
stipulated, the development will incorporate wide perimeter lots and open space areas,
enhanced landscaping and height restrictions, which will also help to provide a transition
from the proposed development to adjacent residential properties and to respect local
conditions.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, will be required to provide shade along the adjacent public sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways located within or adjacent to open space tracts. This will help to
encourage walking and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces,
thus cooling the micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Rio Montaña Area Plan: See Background Item No. 4.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 10.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 11.
Page 1053
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 12.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Agricultural S-1
North (across South Single-family residential and
R1-18 and S-1
Mountain Avenue) vacant
South Agricultural S-1
East Single-family residential S-1 (Approved R1-18)
West (across 19th Agricultural, single-family
S-1, S-1 (Approved R1-18)
Avenue) residential and vacant
R1-10 – Single-Family Residential District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards R1-10 Requirements
proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 49.52 acres
Total Maximum Number of 223 units 160 units (Met)
Units
Maximum Density 3.5 dwelling units per acre, up 3.23 dwelling units per acre
to 4.5 with bonus (Met)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 55 feet (Met)
Minimum Lot Depth 110 adjacent to arterial 119 (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet Not specified**
Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent, up to 50 percent Not specified*
including attached shade
structures
Page 1054
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Perimeter Streets: 15 feet 19th Avenue: 170 feet (Met)
(19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue) South Mountain Avenue:
15 feet (Met)
Interior Perimeter Property Rear: 15 feet (1-story), Not specified*
Lines: 20 feet (2-story)
(Side and Rear)
Side: 0 feet (1-story), 15 feet
(2-story)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Adjacent to street (19th 15 feet average, 10 feet 19th Avenue: 15 feet (Met)
Avenue and South minimum
Mountain Avenue) South Mountain Avenue: 15
feet (Met)
Minimum Common Area 5% of gross site area 17% (Met)
*Variance or site plan revision required.
**Staff recommend Stipulation No. 4 to limit the maximum building height in the
development to one story and 20 feet or two stories and 30 feet, depending on the
location of the lot.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 49.52 acres located at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to R1-10
(Single-Family Residence District) for single-family residential uses. The site is
presently used for agricultural purposes.
In 1960, the subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix from unincorporated
Maricopa County and zoned S-1. Historic aerial imagery shows that the site was
historically utilized for agricultural uses.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The surrounding area contains a variety of agricultural and residential zoning districts
including S-2 (Ranch or Farm Commercial District), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District), R1-18 (Single-Family Residence District), and R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District). Properties north and west of the site, across 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue, are zoned S-1 and S-1 (Approved R1-18).
Page 1055
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
The property south of the
site is zoned S-1, while the
property east of the site is
zoned R1-18.
Approximately 0.1 miles
north and northeast of the
site are properties zoned
R1-10. Furthermore,
properties to the southeast
of the site, across the
Western Canal, are zoned
R1-10. Lastly, numerous
properties south of Dobbins
Road, along 19th Avenue,
are also zoned R1-10.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use
Map designation for the
subject site is Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre,
which is not consistent with
the proposed R1-10 zoning
district. Thus, a concurrent
Minor General Plan
Amendment case GPA-SM-
2-21-8 proposes to change
the land use map
designation to Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. North, south, east and
west of the site is
designated as Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre. General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development
Southeast of the site is Department
designated Parks/Open
Space – Publicly Owned
along the Western Canal.
Page 1056
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
4. Rio Montaña Area Plan
The Rio Montaña Area
Plan encourages
preservation of the rural
character of the area and
incorporates transition
zones to protect desert and
open space areas. The
plan also encourages
pedestrian and equestrian
activities through a network
of trails and aspires to
develop a sense of Rio Montaña Area Plan, Source: Planning and Development
community while Department
encouraging investment in
the community.
The Rio Montaña Area Plan intends to accomplish this vision through seven goals
that include:
1. Promoting balanced, high quality development;
2. Protecting and improving neighborhoods through maintenance, rehabilitation
and infill projects;
3. Keeping a distinctive character that reflects the diversity in its equestrian
heritage, culture, history and architecture;
4. Protecting the rural character, the Sonoran Desert and the riparian potential of
the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project;
5. Promoting future business development and economic growth;
6. Developing the tourism industry through a wide range of opportunities;
7. Providing a variety of transportation options.
The site is centrally located and designated by the land use map as Residential 1 to
2 dwelling units per acre within the Plan. As previously mentioned, a concurrent
General Plan Land Use Map amendment case GPA-SM-21-8 proposes to change
this designation to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Per the proposed
stipulations, the development will incorporate wide perimeter lots along the north and
east property lines, provide a wide open space area along the western perimeter,
require pitched roofs to be incorporated on all buildings, incorporate one-story
limitations and open view fencing elements along the perimeter streets. These
elements will help provide an appropriate land use transition consistent with
development patterns in the area, while furthering many of the goals of the Rio
Montaña Area Plan.
Page 1057
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
PROPOSAL
5. The proposal is to develop a 160-lot, single-family detached residential subdivision
with street access points along 19th Avenue on the west and South Mountain
Avenue on the north. A density of 3.23 dwelling units per acre is depicted in the
proposed site plan, which also depicts a variety of lot widths ranging from 55 feet to
75 feet in width.
Conceptual Site Plan with Planning and Development Department annotations,
Source: BFH Group
Conformance to the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant is recommended
by staff to provide certainty in how the project will develop and also to preserve the
perimeter transitions along the north, east and west property lines via 75-foot-wide
perimeter lots or deep open space areas. Open space areas are also provided
throughout the site for easy access by future residents. Furthermore, enhanced
building setbacks along 19th Avenue will ensure that future homes will be placed
more internally within the site to create an open feel along this part of the
Page 1058
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
development. Stipulation No. 1 addresses conformance to the site plan.
Staff also recommends Stipulation No. 2 which addresses landscaping
enhancements along perimeter landscape setbacks that will help screen the site
from existing residential homes in the neighborhood.
Lastly, Stipulation No. 3 as recommended by staff, will limit the building height to
two stories and 30 feet, except for lots along the perimeters which shall be one story
and 20 feet in height. These stipulations will help provide appropriate an transition
from existing residential uses in the area, and further the goals for the Rio Montaña
Area Plan by protecting existing neighborhoods and maintaining an distinctive
character plus scale.
6. No conceptual building elevations were submitted by the applicant, but renderings of
the housing product envisioned on this site were submitted. These renderings depict
a variety of architectural styles, with various colors and textures proposed. These
renderings also show one and two-story housing products.
Staff does not recommend conformance to these building renderings, as details of
building materials and other design elements were not included. However, staff
recommends that all lots, including 75-foot wide lots, be subject to the Single-Family
Design Review standards outlined in Section 507 Tab.A. II. of the Zoning Ordinance.
This is addressed in Stipulation No. 4.
Furthermore, staff recommends Stipulation No. 5 to require that all building
elevations incorporate several enhancements including: multiple colors, exterior
accent materials, and textural differences that exhibit quality and durability.
Page 1059
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Stipulation No. 5 also requires
that a minimum of 50 percent
of the elevations for each
floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the
front yard. This design feature
will reinforce community
orientation, consistent with
the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
Conceptual Building Renderings, Source: Not specified
7. A fencing exhibit was submitted as part of this request, depicting various materials
and fencing elements. Full open view fencing is proposed along 19th Avenue, while a
combination of solid and open view fencing is proposed along South Mountain
Avenue and other internal open space areas. These elements will increase visibility
within these areas and promote an open feel both within the community and along
adjacent streets. Staff recommends conformance to this fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) in Stipulation No. 6 in order to ensure that these fencing elements are
incorporated into this community.
Page 1060
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Conceptual Landscape Exhibit (Landscape Plan), Source: ela
The development proposes vehicular access to the community along 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue. In order to promote a sense of place for future
residents, Stipulation No. 7 recommends that each of the vehicular entryways
incorporate decorative materials. Furthermore, staff recommend Stipulation No. 8 to
require enhanced landscaping on both sides of each entryway into the development
containing a variety of plant materials for visual interest.
Page 1061
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
8. Staff recommends various pedestrian connections and enhancements throughout the
community to promote recreation, walking and alternative transportation methods.
Stipulation No. 9 addresses the following connections to/between:
Amenity areas;
Sidewalks;
Centralized pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portion of
the site;
Shaded pedestrian path that connects to either 19th Avenue or South
Mountain Avenue near this intersection.
Pedestrian pathway connecting to the Western Canal.
9. The conceptual site plan also depicts various open space areas distributed
throughout the development for future residents to enjoy. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 10 to limit the use of high-water use plants within common landscape
areas to help conserve water and to allow the applicant to strategically place plants,
such as turf, in areas of high activity and retention basins, among other areas. Staff
recommends Stipulation No. 11 to require several amenities distributed throughout
the development including:
Tot lot with shade equipment;
Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
Four benches or seating features;
Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
These amenities will promote the health of future residents by providing recreational
opportunities through various activities, allowing the enjoyment of sunlight, and
having a communal space that enables social interactions.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
10. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached from the
curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide thermal
comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. Staff is
recommending several stipulations designed to provide trees and enhance shade
within the development.
Staff is recommending stipulations for enhanced landscaping and shaded sidewalks
along the perimeter property lines as follows:
Page 1062
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Fifty-percent two-inch caliper and 50-percent three-inch caliper trees within the
required landscape setbacks (Stipulation No. 2);
Shaded pathway connecting the community to or near the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Stipulation No. 3);
Tot lot amenity with shade equipment (Stipulation No. 11);
The sidewalks along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
detached and shaded a minimum of 75 percent with two-inch caliper trees
(Stipulation No. 12 and 13).
11. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by providing shaded detached
sidewalks and constructing a multi-use trail plus dedicating a multi-use trail easement
along 19th Avenue to promote recreation in the area. This trail will help to establish a
new trail alignment that could connect the trails along South Mountain Avenue to
Dobbins Road in the future, as other properties along 19th Avenue develop. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
12. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The application materials submitted by the applicant indicate that recycling
facilities will be available to residents.
13. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population
growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing
units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason
why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s
Page 1063
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a
variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace
while using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
Stipulation No. 1 would allow the developer to construct up to 160 single-family
detached residential units. If this development is approved, it would allow further
diversity in housing products within the area and new housing choice for existing and
new residents to the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff received 15 letters in opposition, one letter of
support, a support petition with 22 signatures and two letter listing concerns and
recommendations. The letters of concern cited issues with land use compatibility due
to the rural nature of the area, density concerns, impacts to existing neighbors,
inadequate infrastructure, increased traffic, inadequate services for the area, impacts
to property values, regional drainage impacts, notification concerns, and lack of
conformance to the Rio Montaña Area Plan. One of the letters in opposition was
conditioned upon lowering the density to no more than three dwelling units per acre
on the site.
The letter of support cited the proposed density and housing affordability as reasons
to support the project. The 22 signatures in support were signed by residents of the
adjacent subdivision to the east of this site. Other letters received contained
comments pertaining to neighborhood outreach and listed other concerns pertaining
to drainage, notification, project justification, compatibility, and conformance to the
Rio Montaña Area Plan.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalk via the most direct
route. Also, comments were provided to recommend alternative paving material
where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, and providing a minimum of 75
percent shade along pedestrian paths, including public sidewalks. These comments
are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13.
16. The Street Transportation Department provided comments pertaining to detached
sidewalks along adjacent streets. Other comments provided pertained to adjacent
right-of-way dedication and street construction, overhead utility undergrounding,
junction box installation at street intersections, relocation of irrigation facilities, and
other general street improvement requirements. These comments are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 12, 13, and 15 through 20.
Page 1064
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
17. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case and
that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire Code with
Phoenix Amendments. Further, the Department commented that they do not know
the water supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required
to meet the required fire flow per the Fire Code.
18. The Water Services Departments commented that there are water and sewer mains
that can potentially serve the development. However, capacity is a dynamic condition
that can change over time due to a variety of factors. Furthermore, the City intends to
provide water and sewer service, requirements and assurances for which are
determined during the site plan review process. For any given property, water and
sewer requirements may vary over time to be less or more restrictive depending on
the status of the City’s water and sewer infrastructure.
19. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department did not have
any comments on this case.
OTHER
20. The subject site is within close proximity to properties used for farming or agricultural
uses, thus potentially leading to dust, odors or other impacts to future residential
uses on the site. Stipulation No. 21 would require the disclosure to purchasers of
property and tenants within the development, the existence and operational
characteristics of agricultural uses in the area.
21. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. Furthermore, that an avigation
easement is dedicated to the City of Phoenix as this property is within the PHX
International Airport traffic pattern airspace and seeking noise sensitive land use.
Lastly, that a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development be provided
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
22. The site is not identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the event
archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing
activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess
the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.
23. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water
flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification of
Page 1065
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
required infrastructure regarding lot space and density.
24. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such as obtaining a
use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning district. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. This proposed development provides a housing option that is consistent with
development patterns in the general area.
2. As stipulated, the proposed development is generally consistent with design policies
and the intent of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
3. This proposed development is appropriately located along an arterial street, 19th
Avenue, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department with specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required canal
frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th Avenue.
Page 1066
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area at a
depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a door or
window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent to a
canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of solid
masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the wall shall
not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
Page 1067
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and topped
with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted with
a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site via
a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian
pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at 19th Avenue or
South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This pathway shall be
constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or similar alternative material. The landscaped tract shall
contain minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on
center or equivalent groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the development
with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This pathway shall be
provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract and constructed of
decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or colored
concrete, or similar alternative material.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas o r 10 percent of
Page 1068
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water use
plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas, including
retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. This
requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private yards on individual
lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Page 1069
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the
east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT)
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work with the Site
Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the technical
appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern boundary
of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
Page 1070
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities. 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.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped November 2, 2021
Conceptual Fencing Exhibit (Landscape Plan) date stamped October 14, 2021
Conceptual Building Renderings date stamped May 25, 2021 (9 pages)
Community Correspondence (39 pages)
Page 1071
R1-10
R1-10*
Z-47-17
R1-10
S-1
LATONA LN
R1-18 * S-2 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
Z-84-88
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
R1-18 *
Z-151-04
R1-18 *
Z-121-03
S-1
R1-10
S-1*
Z-SP-25-06
I
Miles
I-10
0.09 0.045 0 0.09 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-31-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Providence Homes
FROM:
S-1 ( 49.52 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/14/2021
Z-31-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
49.52 Acres QS 02-25 C-7 TO: R1-10 ( 49.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 49 N/A
R1-10 173 223
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 1072
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-31-21.mxd
R1-10
R1-10*
Z-47-17
R1-10
S-1
LATONA LN
R1-18 * S-2 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
Z-84-88
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
R1-18 *
Z-151-04
R1-18 *
Z-121-03
S-1
R1-10
S-1*
Z-SP-25-06
I
Miles
I-10
0.09 0.045 0 0.09 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-31-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Providence Homes
FROM:
S-1 ( 49.52 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/14/2021
Z-31-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
49.52 Acres QS 02-25 C-7 TO: R1-10 ( 49.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 49 N/A
R1-10 173 223
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 1073
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-31-21.mxd
Page 1074
Page 1075
Page 1076
Page 1077
Page 1078
Page 1079
Page 1080
Page 1081
Page 1082
Page 1083
Page 1084
From: larry Brown
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 7:48:31 PM
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1085
From: Amber Harrison
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 19th AVE and South Mountain
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:22:05 AM
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
Please do not allow corporate greed here. As with many residents in South Phoenix, weoved
here for the some what rural feel. Allowing this property to be used other than what it is
currently used for will remove that feel and lower our property values even further.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 1086
From: Beckett Aguirre
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning of 19th Ave & South Mtn Ave
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 7:53:52 AM
Mr. Bojorquez,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
I am a disabled Marine combat veteran & my wife & I just moved to the area. We are at
Silva Mountain Estates, the Elliot homes on 23rd Ave & South Mtn Ave. I moved to this
area to get away from the high density housing that is closer to the center of the valley. I
suffer from PTSD & other combat related ailments. Living in this rural area is good for my
mental health, which is why we moved here.
This proposed development will add more homes & traffic to the area, taking away from the
rural feel & climate.
Please do not allow the rezoning of this property. Thank you for you time.
Beckett Aguirre
USMC Veteran
623.271.5015
Page 1087
From: eliza williamson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning request in South Mountain area
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:57:06 AM
Dear Mr. Bojorquez-gaxiola,
In reference to case #GPA-SM-2-21-8. I mirror all the concerns voiced to you by my neighbor,
Patti Trites. This area is already becoming too congested, the infrastructure here is old and not
intended for such growth.
Please assist in this matter and prevent the rezoning of this area of 19th Ave and South Mountain
road.
Thank you for your time.
Eliza Williamson
2433 W. Hayduk Rd, 85041.
The true measure of any society can be found in
how it treats its most vulnerable members
Mahatma Gandhi [azquotes.com]
Page 1088
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1089
From: Eric Zimtbaum
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Protest cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 1:11:34 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Hi Enrique,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment and Z-31-21-8
(Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19 th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Thank you,
Eric
Notice of Confidentiality: The information included and/or attached in this electronic mail
transmission may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended for the
addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, distribution or the taking of action in
reliance on the contents of the information is prohibited. If you believe that you have received
the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
without copying or disclosing it.
Page 1090
From: Erin Hegedus
To: AZleatherking@aol.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; jpoulsen@provhomes.com; ben@wtheymorris.com; Helen
Jewel Clark; mikejosic@gmail.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Dorothy Hallock; Cyd Manning
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:03:36 PM
Good afternoon, I am in receipt of your letter advising that you are requesting rezoning from 1-2
DU/AC to 2-3.5 DU/AC
I am writing to contest the rezoning. Among many other issues, the infrastructure, does not support
this change. Dobbins Road, 19th Avenue, South Mountain Avenue are two lane roads that are
already exhausted by traffic.
I am asking at this time is that when you schedule your “neighborhood meeting” as stated in your
letter dated 6/7/2021 that you schedule it at a time/location that is convenient for the neighbors
that this rezoning affects.
Perhaps after 6 pm at a location in the 85041 location
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1091
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
To: Erin Hegedus
Subject: RE: Rezoning request for 19th Avenue & Southern
For Z 31 21 8 and GPA SM 2 21 8, and Z 58 21 8 and GPA SM 3 21 8 case files.
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:10 PM
To: info@TechnicalSolutionsAZ.com; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Rezoning request for 19th Avenue & Southern
I reside at 8630 South 19th Avenue and am very concerned with the request to rezone this property.
Myself and our neighbors have aggressively contested this previously and continue to do so.
My concerns, to list a few are:
Infrastructure does not support an increase in density.
o South Mountain Avenue is at best a two lane road from 7th Street to 27th Avenue. There
are several areas of this road that are only one lane and the road is continually backed
up especially when school is in session.
o 19th Avenue is also a two lane road with open canals to the east and the west and
cannot support the current traffic and has been subject to several fatalities in the last 3
years.
o Additionally, Dobbins Road is a two lane road from 20th Street to 43rd Avenue and has
been heavily backed up for years.
There are many developments on Dobbins Road that are in process that are going to affect all of us that
reside in the area.
Furthermore, the housing that is proposed is not compliant with the homes that are in the area, which
are larger lots, higher value and conform to the current Rio Montana plan that was approved by the City
Council.
I am not only concerned with the lack of infrastructure but the fact that the higher density homes will
greatly devalue our homes that conform to the current zoning.
I ask that you review the plans and decrease the density to conform to the Rio Montana plan as we have
requested previously.
Sincerely,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1092
From: JAMES TORRES
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fw: Fwd: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:40:02 AM
Attachments: Enhanced Notification Form GPA-SM-2-21-8_dated 06-11-21.pdf
I’m a resident at Southern Hills, I hope you don’t rezone the property mentions below. All the
other Builders are dealing with the temporary increase in building materials. Please don’t open
a can of worms by rezoning this parcel. All the other Builders are making money building
houses in Phoenix.
Thank you,
James Torres
2337 W Corral Rd
Phoenix, AZ. 86041
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [overview.mail.yahoo.com]
Begin forwarded message:
On Monday, June 14, 2021, 10:33 AM, Patti Trites wrote:
Hi Neighbors,
I am writing to you as a neighbor, not as the HOA.
I was recently made aware that the developer/owner of the land at 19th AVENUE
and SOUTH MOUNTAIN;
which is across the street from the Worm Farm and
just west of the new development The Commons at South Mountain
WANTS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM 0-2 DU/ACRE TO 3.5
DU/ACRE.
more homes - closer together - more congestion.
Please send your comments to the City Planner referencing this case GPA-SM-2-
21-8:
Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola at enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov
You can see my comments below.
The Developer is claiming increased costs of materials as to why he needs the
increased density.
The details of what they propose is attached. None of us got notice of this zoning
change either.
Please stay engaged and keep South Mountain beautiful.
pass this one.
Thank you.
Page 1093
Patti
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patti Trites
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:54 AM
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels, M Busching (Cartof)
, Greg Brownell , Edward Aldama
Dear Enrique,
Hope you are fine.
I wanted to make you aware of my concerns on this case:
GPA-SM-2-21-8
A few items I wish to point out:
- I and my neighbors were never notified of this proposed zoning change.
I am the HOA President of Southern Hills and have been since 2016.
- There is no hydrology report done for this zoning change.
How does it impact the water in a 100 year storm event, especially downstream?
The City incorporated this requirement for rezoning cases...if you recall.
- I have a problem with their reasoning on the need to rezone.."due to
increased costs of lumber etc."
"The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac are the runaway costs of
homebuilding and development. The primary reason for this density of 3.5
du/ac
are the runaway costs of homebuilding and development. By example,
according
to the NAHB, just lumber alone is 300% greater in cost since April 2020
causing
new single-family homes to increase by nearly $36,000 on average. There
have
been significant increases in almost every other component of home
building,
plumbing, roofing, concrete, etc. Price increases have also hit development
very
hard also. Asphalt and piping have gone up dramatically over the past year.
The cost of materials, labor, developing lots, and homebuilding has
increased so
dramatically that homes built on 55’-wide lots will cost more than homes
built on
80‘-wide lots just one year ago. Thus the, 0-2 du/ac density currently
assigned to
this property would push home prices out of the range for all but a very
few, and
certainly beyond what the market can support in this area."
Page 1094
a. They will charge more for the homes; these are not affordable housing.
Builders are 'recouping these prices.
b. The development just next to this land, to the East, is by the same developer.
He kept that zoning at 0-2 du/acre for The Commons at South Mountain.
The builder had told me, at an initial call with Ben in 2020, that he was
selling the homes there quickly.
Those prices were 480K - over $600K.
He can make that money on the existing zoning.
I am certain that the new homeowners at The Commons at South
Mountain would be very upset with the zoning change if they were aware the
same builder/developer wants to put smaller homes in smaller lots next to
them.
c. They must follow Rio Montana Guidelines....or what is the point of having
guidelines
Finally - when I had a call with the Developer and Ben in 2020, I told them to
keep the same zoning; due the hydrology (i showed him the FLO-2D mapping for
the area available by Maricopa County; and to get buy in from the Rio Montana
Group across the street.
The worm farm and the landscape companies do not want the zoning change, he
told me then.
I asked why the zoning change - he told me then that it was due to needing more
homes to pay for the upgrade to 19th Avenue with sidewalks and sewers and the
upgrade to South Mountain the city will want.
- I don't see that reason on this document.
Do I have an opportunity to speak to this at the village?
Kindly please advise.
Thank you.
Patti
Page 1095
From: H. Jewel Clark
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Erin Hegedus; mijosic; zacharyrbrooks@hotmail.com; Zachary Brooks; Stephen Williams; Dorothy Hallock;
rhornback; azleatherking; ravi6161sharma@gmail.com; kimberly gomez; M.Rubio23@hotmail.com;
M.Rubio_23@hotmail.com
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 11:26:50 AM
Attachments: 4826_001.pdf
Dear Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue. My husband and I own property just on the other side of the proposed
development at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and according to my husband who checks the
mail, we did not receive notification of this zoning request. We were forwarded a copy by a
neighbor just last night, June 10. Surely we are within the notification area for this
development since it directly affects our transit to and from our home and our view from our
property?
The proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the city's Rio Montana development plan. As
stated clearly in the plan on page 17, "Residential densities should transition from north to
south in decreasing intensity." And as clearly laid out on the map on the following page, the
area south of South Mountain Ave, and 19th Ave. is intended for 0-2 Du/ac. The current
residents of the area have invested in and built on their properties to this standard and we have
reasonable expectations of the city to uphold the tenets of this plan.
In addition, as we demonstrated just over 2 years ago when opposing similar development on
the southwest side of South Mountain Ave. and 19th Ave., the infrastructure at the intersection
of 19th Ave. and South Mountain Ave. is wholly inadequate to accommodate torrential run-off
from South Mountain Park or the traffic congestion of an already overburdened intersection,
which includes school traffic. This is not something a developer can remediate.
The developments that have adhered to the density and other design aspects of the Rio
Montana plan have not been opposed in our area and we welcome new development when it
aligns with that plan. Again, since we did not receive official notification for this rezoning
request (assuming we are within the notification range) I would petition that there should be a
delay in any hearing to verify all surrounding property owners have actually received official
notification.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1096
From: Kim Nelson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Protest cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Date: Monday, August 2, 2021 11:16:05 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique,
I would like to write in and protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan
Amendment and Z-31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19 th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue.
Please consider!!
Thank you so much,
Kim
KIMBERLY ZIMTBAUM
Regional Portfolio Executive
C: 602-478-9826 | O: 480-483-4981 Ext 3026
kimberly.nelson@chrobinson.com
www.chrobinson.com [chrobinson.com]
20860 N. Tatum Blvd | Suite 350 | Phoenix, Az 85050
****************************************************************************
*********************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of the sender of the e-mail. The sender of the e-
mail accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. (IP)
****************************************************************************
*********************************************
Page 1097
From: larry Brown
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning application
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:16:52 PM
Greetings Enrique,
I am Larry Brown of 8706 S. 16th Dr. PHOENIX, AZ 85041. I am writing in regards to the
Rezoning application and Minor General Plan Amendment (Z-31-21-8 and GPA-Sm-2-21-8).
According to the letter I received today from Withey Morris LLC., Providence Homes wishes
to build on 55-foot-wide and 75-foot-wide lots with the 75-foot-wide lots being placed on the
West and North perimeter. As a current resident in The Commons at South Mountain and my
home being on the western perimeter of our neighborhood, I am concerned that we will have
up to 3 homes adjacent to ours with the 55-Foot-wide lots being placed on the Eatern
perimeter rather than possibly 2 homes if it were to place the 75-foot-wide lots here. Is it
possible they put the incorrect location of these wider lots in this letter?
Is it possible to require a geen space between the neighborhoods in order to better protect the
property value of the homes here in The Commons at South Mountain?
I appreciate your time and look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1098
From: Nicole
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Change in zoning in south mountain
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:06:11 PM
Hello I have made aware of developers changing the zoning in south mountain. South mountain is a beautiful area
with low density with some farms and people riding horses in the area. I understand things change as I have seen the
change the 12 years I have lived in the area. It would be nice if the slightly rural feel and and not densely populated
areas closer to downtown. Please take this into consideration with case: GPA-SM-2-21-8.
Thank you
Nicole Stovall
Sent from my iPhone
Page 1099
From: Stan Flowers
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 1:49:11 PM
Dear Enrique,
I am writing to express my opposition to the GPA proposed for the Kimura Gardens housing
project at 19th Avenue and South Mountain Road to change the current Plan's residential
density from 0-2 du/acre to 2-3.48 du/acre. I've been a resident of the immediate area for 9
years and a south Phoenix/Laveen resident for 12 years.
The primary reason noted in the request is that costs of homebuilding and development have
increased. In other words, the developers want to decrease the size of lots in order to
squeeze more houses into this 49 acre plot of land in order to sell more houses. It's merely a
profit-driven decision and not at all related to community development or wealth and quality
of life.
The area south of South Mountain/19th Avenue is already becoming congested with traffic.
Housing developments are either in the process or planned in several areas along Dobbins
Road which is the next major east-west transportation artery south of this area:
Silva Mountain - 67 lots already built and directly east of Kimura Gardens on South
Mountain Road
Dobbins Heights - 176 homes currently being built at 15th Avenue/Dobbins
Winde Farms - 46 lots planned for the northeast corner of 27th Avenue/Dobbins
Dobbins Manor - excavation underway on the southwest corner of 27th
Avenue/Dobbins; I don't have information on the number of lots but the plat of land is
probably 35-40 acres
19th Avenue via Dobbins Road has already become a viable shortcut for access to downtown
Phoenix/I-17, and areas east of Central Avenue, due to serious and constant congestion on
Baseline Road from 19th Avenue to 16th Street.
In regards to increasing the density unit per acre to support retail and commercial
development at 19th Avenue and Baseline Road, that's a bit of a stretch. There's a lack of, and
has always been a lack of, desirable amenities at that intersection other than fast food and of
course the Lowe's store and CVS, despite constant homebuilding in this area. That's a
problem looking for a solution from the Community and Economic Development Department
and developers. So many of our local friends and neighbors travel out of the area to
patronize.
As a south Phoenix resident whose 2-year old home was nearly destroyed by the 25 and 100-
Page 1100
year floods in August and September 2014, I am always concerned about the impacts of water
flow from the mountains. 19th Avenue is a natural waterway from South Mountain down to
Baseline. Intersections consistently flood between these two points. Has the developer been
able to determine how this natural water flow will impact this development? The residents in
our community are diligent in keeping our friends and neighbors aware of the need to inquire
about water flow in these areas being developed for more homes.
In summary, it's obvious that the rural feel of South Mountain area and nearby Laveen are
slowly disappearing. Housing developments are going to continue. However, allowing
developers to amend General Plan decisions just to increase their profit margin, should not be
a determinant for amendments. Community improvement and quality of life enhancements
need to play a role.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Stan Flowers
2425 W. Hayduk Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Southern Hills Community
Page 1101
From: T Ryan
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: #Z-31-21-8 South Mountain and 19th Avenue
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 4:19:02 PM
I’m writing to urge the Planning and Zoning Committee to deny the application to upzone the
property at 19th Avenue and South Mountain. The original plan for the area south of Baseline was to
maintain the agricultural/rural feel of the area. The roads and streets in this area cannot handle
more people. 19th Avenue is 2 lanes (not two lanes each way, 2 lanes period). There is no shoulder
on the road nor any turn lanes.
The two east/west roads for leaving the neighborhood are Baseline and Dobbins. Dobbins is another
2 lane road and Baseline is bumper to bumper with numerous car accidents daily. Please pull the
police reports and you will see I am not exaggerating this. The new school at Baseline and 15 th
Avenue has also created a large traffic issue both before and after school. A new large apartment
complex is under construction at 19th Avenue and Southern. This development will add to the traffic
on Baseline as well since I’m sure many of their children will attend the school.
In short, the infrastructure from Baseline to the south does not lend itself to higher density building.
Please contact me if you have further questions or would like me to testify before a hearing.
Regards,
Tammy Ryan
1822 W Moody Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85041
(602) 430-5965
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1102
From: zach@zbrooks.com
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; jpoulsen@provhomes.com; ben@wtheymorris.com; Erin Hegedus
Subject: Re: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 11:27:42 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Enrigue -
The Arizona Worm Farm, the property I own directly across from this proposed development
is also opposed to this development as presented.
We will be sending you a formal response in the near future, but would appreciate an
opportunity to meet with you (even virtually) while the project is still in review - before it gets
formally presented to the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
I would like to share my concerns with you and explain ways the development could be more
consistent with the neighborhood and the general plan for the area. That way, perhaps you can
help us get it to a desirable project before it gets a favorable recommendation from the
planning department.
Can we meet?
Zach Brooks
602-418-6704
As always, leave us a comment with any questions regarding your worm farm, composting or
anything sustainable farming related! Our farm hours of operation are listed below with links
to our website and Facebook page where you can find out about our farm and sign up for
vermicomposting classes held once a month at the farm!
______________________
FB: Arizona Worm Farm https://www.facebook.com/arizonawormfarm/ [facebook.com]
Website: http://www.arizonawormfarm.com/ [arizonawormfarm.com]
_______________________
Hours of Operation/Visitation
Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm
Saturday 8 am - 1 pm
Closed Sundays
On Friday, June 11, 2021, 10:58:15 AM MST, Erin Hegedus wrote:
Thank you for your response, I am sure you will be receiving many more emails contesting the rezoning
as we have previously presented our case when the southwest corner was requested for rezoning to
higher density housing.
Page 1103
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 10:29:04 AM
To: Erin Hegedus; AZleatherking@aol.com
; jpoulsen@provhomes.com ;
ben@wtheymorris.com; Helen Jewel Clark ;
mikejosic@gmail.com; zach@zbrooks.com ; Dorothy
Hallock; Cyd Manning
Subject: RE: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Good morning Erin,
How are you? This is Enrique Bojorquez, South Mountain Village Planner with the city of
Phoenix. Thank you for your statement in regards to concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8
(General Plan Amendment) and Z-31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. I will add your statement to the case
file for the review of our team and the public bodies that will hear these two cases in the
next few months.
At the moment, rezoning cases are required by the city to host an online virtual meeting,
teleconference or another alternative meeting format where members of the public can
safely engage with the applicant on the project (due to the Emergency Declaration issued
by City Council in 2020 arising from COVID-19 concerns). Over the past year, most
applicants have elected to host an online virtual meeting to meet this requirement. There
will also be a website created by the applicant on these cases where project documents will
be displayed for public review.
If you have any questions about the city process, public hearings, other aspects of these
cases involving the city, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
Page 1104
you.***
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:04 PM
To: AZleatherking@aol.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiolagaxiola@phoenix.gov>; jpoulsen@provhomes.com; ben@wtheymorris.com; Helen Jewel
Clark; mikejosic@gmail.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Dorothy
Hallock; Cyd Manning
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Good afternoon, I am in receipt of your letter advising that you are requesting rezoning from
1-2 DU/AC to 2-3.5 DU/AC
I am writing to contest the rezoning. Among many other issues, the infrastructure, does not
support this change. Dobbins Road, 19th Avenue, South Mountain Avenue are two lane
roads that are already exhausted by traffic.
I am asking at this time is that when you schedule your “neighborhood meeting” as stated in
your letter dated 6/7/2021 that you schedule it at a time/location that is convenient for the
neighbors that this rezoning affects.
Perhaps after 6 pm at a location in the 85041 location
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1105
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: CORRECTION Rezoning Feedback
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 8:00:11 PM
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola,
Please disregard my e-mail sent earlier today regarding Application #Z-31-21-8, and GPA-SM-
2-21-8
I am a resident in South Phoenix and DO NOT support approval of the application. I encourage
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee to limit rezoning residential development to
2-3 homes per acre maximum.
Dean Chiarelli, Master of Arts, Registered Dietitian, Registered Environmental Health Specialist
Electronic Signature Dean Chiarelli
Page 1106
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; Marcia Busching; Greg Brownell; edward@yourgreatestself.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:55:06 AM
Dear Enrique,
Hope you are fine.
I wanted to make you aware of my concerns on this case:
GPA-SM-2-21-8
A few items I wish to point out:
- I and my neighbors were never notified of this proposed zoning change.
I am the HOA President of Southern Hills and have been since 2016.
- There is no hydrology report done for this zoning change.
How does it impact the water in a 100 year storm event, especially downstream?
The City incorporated this requirement for rezoning cases...if you recall.
- I have a problem with their reasoning on the need to rezone.."due to increased costs of
lumber etc."
"The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac are the runaway costs of
homebuilding and development. The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac
are the runaway costs of homebuilding and development. By example, according
to the NAHB, just lumber alone is 300% greater in cost since April 2020 causing
new single-family homes to increase by nearly $36,000 on average. There have
been significant increases in almost every other component of home building,
plumbing, roofing, concrete, etc. Price increases have also hit development very
hard also. Asphalt and piping have gone up dramatically over the past year.
The cost of materials, labor, developing lots, and homebuilding has increased so
dramatically that homes built on 55’-wide lots will cost more than homes built on
80‘-wide lots just one year ago. Thus the, 0-2 du/ac density currently assigned to
this property would push home prices out of the range for all but a very few, and
certainly beyond what the market can support in this area."
a. They will charge more for the homes; these are not affordable housing. Builders are
'recouping these prices.
b. The development just next to this land, to the East, is by the same developer.
He kept that zoning at 0-2 du/acre for The Commons at South Mountain.
The builder had told me, at an initial call with Ben in 2020, that he was selling the
homes there quickly.
Those prices were 480K - over $600K.
He can make that money on the existing zoning.
I am certain that the new homeowners at The Commons at South Mountain would be
very upset with the zoning change if they were aware the same builder/developer wants
to put smaller homes in smaller lots next to them.
c. They must follow Rio Montana Guidelines....or what is the point of having guidelines
Finally - when I had a call with the Developer and Ben in 2020, I told them to keep the same
zoning; due the hydrology (i showed him the FLO-2D mapping for the area available by
Maricopa County; and to get buy in from the Rio Montana Group across the street.
The worm farm and the landscape companies do not want the zoning change, he told me then.
I asked why the zoning change - he told me then that it was due to needing more homes to
pay for the upgrade to 19th Avenue with sidewalks and sewers and the upgrade to South
Mountain the city will want.
- I don't see that reason on this document.
Page 1107
Do I have an opportunity to speak to this at the village?
Kindly please advise.
Thank you.
Patti
--
Hope you have a great day. Thank you.
Patti Trites
Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1108
From: Patti Trites
To: Adam Baugh; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: John S. Poulsen (jpoulsen@provhomes.com); Tamala Daniels; Marcia Busching
Subject: Re: FW: Opposition Letter - Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 7:07:10 AM
Attachments: image004.png
Dear Adam,
Hello. Thank you for your email.
I remain open to meey with you and your client, John.
I would request that you invite two others critical to this project: someone from the new
development John built, The Commons at Providence, and someone from the Rio Montana
subdivision.
These immediate neighbors' feedback along with other neighbor's is critical as you move
forward.
Let me know when you have them available and I will gladly meet.
Always working to help out.
By the way, I never received the first notice. I received the second notice yesterday of the
zoom meeting July 7th, but it came to me due to my complaint not as a homeowner. My
neighbors have not been notified by your client.
Enrique- please include in correspondence to the Village on this project..
Thank you.
Patti
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 2:17 AM Adam Baugh wrote:
Hi Patti,
I hope you’re doing well. I miss seeing you on the village. You were always very kind to
me.
I just wanted to follow up with you about a project we discussed back in February. I hope
you might recall the zoom call we did with you and my client John Poulsen. He is a sweet
man, very warm and grandfatherly. You might recall we mentioned how he developed The
Commons on South Mountain Avenue east of 19th Avenue, and was soon going to develop
the land he owns at the southeast corner of that intersection. When we shared our plans with
you in February you were complementary to the project and warned us to pay close attention
to the drainage study, which we did thankfully based on your advice.
Page 1109
Enrique forwarded me your letter of opposition which surprised me and is a different tone.
But I also know I need to do the necessary work to address concerns. Would you be open to
meeting with John and I soon?
G. Adam Baugh, Esq.
Withey Morris PLC
2525 E Arizona Biltmore Circle #A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Ph: (602) 230-0600
Fax: (602) 212-1787
[linkedin.com]
WM_Logo_1615U_K
[witheymorris.com]
Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication
or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication, but
destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
Page 1110
Page 1111
Page 1112
Page 1113
Page 1114
Page 1115
Page 1116
Page 1117
Page 1118
Page 1119
Page 1120
Page 1121
Page 1122
From: Seidy Lasker
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 3:57:10 PM
Hi, I would just like to say I 100% support all rezoning efforts in South Phoenix including
the one on 19th ave & South Mountain. I think 3+ lots per acre is great and more higher
density housing to increase affordability including condos.
I believe there needs to be a bigger push towards rezoning to create more affordable living
in Buckeye, Goodyear, Avondale.
I don’t believe in single family rentals though. I think if houses are to be built, they should
be built for sale and not an entire community for rent unless its an apartment complex.
Thanks
--
Seidy Lasker | Personal: 602-710-7835
Page 1123
Attachment C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Dates: December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this rezoning request on
November 9, 2021 and voted (13-0) to continue the case to the December 14, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting, in agreement with the applicant.
Subsequently, the case was continued to the January 6, 2022 Planning Commission
hearing.
As a result of the discussion at the November 9, 2021 Village Planning Committee
meeting, the applicant has provided an updated site plan and a landscape plan,
attached to this report, that depicts a decrease in the number of lots from 160 to 156 on
the subject site. Furthermore, the applicant has requested to limit all homes in this
development to a maximum height of one story and 22 feet.
Other changes to the site and landscape plans include the off-setting of lots, lot width
adjustments for 55-foot and 60-foot wide lots, depiction of amenity areas and pedestrian
pathways. A minor reduction to the open space percentage from 17 percent to 16
percent resulted from these changes. Due to these changes, staff recommends
modifying the following stipulations:
Page 1124
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
• Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan and update
to the open space percentage;
• Stipulation No. 3 regarding limitations to single-story homes;
• Stipulation No. 9 regarding a requirement to provide pedestrian access gates to
the Western Canal from adjacent public streets;
• Stipulation No. 11. regarding the development of open space areas in general
conformance to the landscape plan;
• Stipulations No. 12 and 13 regarding a clarification on the shade and live
coverage standards;
• Stipulation No. 21 regarding updates to disclosure documents on agricultural
uses;
• New Stipulation No. 22 regarding disclosure of a shooting range at the Phoenix
Police Academy approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the site;
• Stipulation Nos. 23 through 26 have been renumbered;
• New Stipulation No. 27 to require a bus stop pad be provided along 19th
Avenue as requested by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
Leading up to and following the December 14, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting, staff received additional correspondence from the public regarding
this case. This additional correspondence is also attached.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations, reflecting updates to the site
plan, provided below:
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
Page 1125
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
Page 1126
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ALONG BOTH 19TH
AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN
Page 1127
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY THE STIPULATIONS AND
INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 1128
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
Page 1129
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Page 1130
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
Exhibits
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped November 24, 2021 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped November 24, 2021
Correspondence from the public (14 pages)
Page 1131
Page 1132
Page 1133
Page 1134
Racelle Escolar
From: Gina Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 3:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Southmountainand19th@gmail.com
Subject: 12/2/21 comment for Item 4. GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello,
I am a resident of Magdalena Estates, adjacent to the general plan amendment
consideration for Kimura Gardens at 19th Ave and South Mountain Ave, Item 4:
GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Item 3: Companion Case Z-31-21-8) . I would like to appeal to
the committee to ensure the general plan submitted aligns to the City plan of Rio
Montana recommendations and continue this request by sending back to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further review, community
discussion, and planning.
Rio Montana plan states the closer to South Mountain the lesser the density. I
believe this property should be zoned as R1-18 to support 2.34 (with bonus)
units/acre rather than the proposed R1-10 that would put 3.25 units/acre. This is
too dense for this rural area. I understand the growth of Phoenix, but we must
maintain quality of rural life in one of the few places in Phoenix it's still found
while maintaining mountain view property values. The developer has much to do
still to support the Rio Montana plan and enhance the South Mountain area, not
continue to reduce it.
Additionally, the staff for the South Mountain Village (SMV) Planning Committee
handled this process poorly by trying to rush through the GPA and the rezoning
at the same time with insufficient time for review by the SMV Planning Committee
and the Public. Not allowing the neighborhood to provide input on the GPA.
Thankfully, the committee recognized this poor management and continued the
zoning process.
It is not often I would submit my comment but I care for this community, the
resale values. and continued uplifting and improvement of South Phoenix areas.
Please consider not approving this General Amendment Plan and send it back to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. As of 11/29/21 the developer
didn't have an amended plan to share with the community or to present to you. I
think they need more time to complete their plan and I ask that you, at minimum,
continue this request for the developer to submit an adjusted plan.
Thank you,
Gina Johnson
Magdalena Estates
1816 W. Magdalena Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041
bakergmb@gmail.com
Page11135
Racelle Escolar
From: Robin Shared
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 12:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Hello,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Kimura Gardens development at the intersection of
South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue. Some of these concerns are specific to this development and its
developer (Providence Homes), while others, especially traffic and flood management, relate to both Kimura
Gardens and to the area as a whole including other developments in planning stages.
For the reasons below, I'm requesting more time for the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns about this development and the way the approvals process
has functioned thus far.
Providence Homes proposes to build a development on about 49 acres with at least 160 units at the SE corner
of 19th Ave and South Mountain Lane.
The busiest corner of South Mountain lane is the northeast corner where Magdalena Estates development has
26 houses. Immediately east of the proposed location for Kimura Gardens is another Providence Homes
development, The Commons, which has 35-40 homes. The northwest corner has 3 houses and the southwest
corner is open land.
There is no way that 160 units in the middle of this community will not have a serious impact that goes far
beyond obliterating the very real neighborhood character that Providence Homes claims to respect.
South Mountain Lane is a very busy stretch of multipurpose road that includes traffic from pedestrians,
bicycles and equestrians in addition to a wide variety of vehicle traffic from Mini Coopers to large scale farm
equipment.
Improvements are needed to make this area safe for the wide variety of foot, bike, horse and vehicle traffic that
are already exists. Simply widening the road will not be sufficient, as functional wide paths are needed to safely
separate the volume of diverse traffic the area already gets.
Adding at least 160 vehicles to this area will be an immediate and serious unsafe impact on everyone who
uses this street.
Flooding off of South Mountain is an ongoing issue in the area as a whole and especially at the intersection of
19th Ave and South Mountain Lane. This intersection is not safe to drive through in any amount of rain, which
at times will flood not only the intersection but much of 19th Ave north of the intersection.
Replacing what is currently a highly absorbant cotton field on the southeast with houses, streets and driveways
will significantly impact water movement in this area which must be considered and safely managed to protect
drivers on 19th Ave as well as the existing properties that surround the area.
This is especially a concern given that the developer representative claimed in the November 9 meeting that
he doesn't have up to date flood maps because he hasn't been "given them." (This despite multiple attempts to
rush the process).
We absolutely do not want a development going in near us that threatens our safety in multiple ways, as
Kimura Gardens currently does by proposing to more than double the drivers at this intersection without
Page11136
making plans for traffic or flooding, let alone showing any awareness or respect for the community's semi-rural
zoning and lifestyles.
The developer has also told multiple people in the community that Providence Homes will show their respect
for the community by committing to single story buildings, to following the Rio Montana plans and to minimal
zoning increases - yet in meetings, he proposes increasing units per lot to 3.5 (instead of 2) and showed
multistory buildings with garage prominent designs. The developer's representative also responded with
noticeable aggravation to questions about the multiple significant deviations from he Rio Montana plans they
claim to be following and to questions about the discrepancies between the several different lot layouts shown
and the inconsistent representation of green areas which make evaluating the plans for lot size, unit size and
responsible water management impossible.
In addition to my concerns about Kimura Gardens and about large scale development in the South Mountain
Village area, I have serious concerns about the procedures and transparency of the Nov 9 zoning meeting.
In this meeting, the developer took intellectual property from community members and incorporated it into his
presentation with the aid of the staff who set up the meeting and shared her materials without her knowledge
or consent, while in turn the developer's presentation materials were not made available to other
commenters by the staff.
This is highly concerning - as are the multiple procedural irregularities noted by board members throughout the
meeting and especially during this presentation. Procedural concerns included (but were not limited to) the
developer's presentation being submitted late, the board members not having a chance to review the material,
the developer rushing approval process steps and trying to piggyback additional approvals into the process
and other breaks with procedure for the process and for the meeting itself.
The impression given to the audience was that participation in the approval process is not equal or transparent
and that many of the board members are willing to skip following procedure and not listen to the board
members who are concerned about following the rules laid out for equity and transparency.
Best,
Rebekah
Page21137
From: Erin Hegedus
To: PDD Planning Commission; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:20:38 PM
I am writing to address my concerns with the referenced plan as it does not conform to the Rio
Montana Plan that was purposely thought out to maintain the integrity of this unique are in Phoenix.
There are few areas of this density and agriculture presence in the valley and once developed will
never return.
Among my concerns are the following:
Alleys for rear entry garages (indicated in the Rio Montana Plan for R1-10 and lower
density)
Side entry garages if not all areas can have alleys
Any garages left that are font-facing have a minimum 10' setback to the front of the
house. All of the facade examples have front facing garages that are or are nearly
50% of the front of the house. This is a no-no.
Actual porches on all home designs. This is in the stipulations by the city planning
staff but not reflected in the housing design examples. That said, the staff does not
recommend adherence to those designs.
Staggered lot sizes side by side. The RM Plan specifically calls for lot widths to vary
in an alternating pattern, for example: 55ft, 65ft, 55ft, 65ft, etc. As laid out, the current
site design groups the same sized lots together.
Commitment to drought tolerant/native trees on properties and not just in the open
spaces to mitigate heat island effect.
Shaded sidewalks within the development and not just on the perimeter landscaping
Preserve irrigation (this was a subject requested/asked about by one of the
committee members)
LEED building practices
Additionally, and most importantly to me, the infrastructure does not support the current
traffic, let alone the additional traffic that the request for increased density will bring to the
area.
I ask for you to look at this request with the eyes that believe in maintaining unique
neighborhoods in Phoenix.
Thank you.
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 1138
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: bassinby@msn.com; erintkhegedos@hotmail.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Companion Case Z-31-21-8):
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:26:47 PM
I am writing to request to speak to the referenced rezoning request by Providence Homes and
Newcastle Development.
I want to state in advance that although I would rather maintain the last of the agriculture that is left
in Phoenix, I know that ultimately the land will be developed.
I ask for consideration of the following:
An explanation of how the already exhausted infrastructure of South Mountain
Avenue, Dobbins Road and 19th Avenue would tolerate the approximately 300 + more
vehicles this development will create.
Currently, Dobbins Road, South Mountain Avenue and 19th Avenue are only two lane
roads surrounded by irrigation canals … In some areas of South Mountain Avenue, this
road reduces to one lane.
I am aware that the developer will present to the Council that there is a shortage of housing,,
however, there are hundreds of developments underway in this area code which would offset that
concern.
Additionally, I ask to respect the Rio Montana Plan that was strategically planned to maintain
the integrity of this neighborhood.
Higher density housing and lower cost housing are a conflict to that plan and would negatively
affect this neighborhood and any additional interest in retailers that might consider this area.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1139
From: H. Jewel Clark
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Comments for Item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8 - City of Phoenix Planning Commission meeting- Dec. 2, 2021
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:44:03 PM
Agenda item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to oppose the approval, at this meeting, of case GPA-SM-2-21-8, which changes
the zoning of 49.5 acres on the southeast corner of 19 th Ave. and West South Mountain Ave.
from S-1 to R1-10 and request that it be returned to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee for further discussion in conjunction with its companion case Z-31-21-8.
My husband and I have our home at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and we have owned that
property since Nov. 2009. We purchased in the area for the larger lots, custom homes, and
equestrian/rural character of the South Mountain area. While we are not opposed to
development, we and our neighbors strongly believe that the design and planning guidelines of
the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and the Rio Montana Plan be adhered to- just as we have
adhered to them- when any new development is proposed. That plan, and the future certainty
that it provided, factored highly in our decision to buy our property here.
Mr. John Poulsen of Providence Homes has requested a zoning density of R1-10 that is flatly
incompatible with the neighborhood character of the surrounding area and in an area with a
known history of street flooding and undeveloped infrastructure. That said, Mr. Poulsen does
seem to be working in good faith with the neighbors to try and find compromise, and we
welcome that. However, there is much that is still up in the air. Mr. Poulsen and Ben Tate
from Withey Morris met for the first time since the SMVPC meeting just this Monday, Nov.
28, with the neighbors to hear our concerns and our ideas. We felt the conversation was
productive, but they have not had time to draft any changes to the site plan to present or have
additional dialog with the neighbors as of this letter.
The companion case Z-31-21-8 was not approved by the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee because there was a lack of adherence to the Rio Montana Plan, many neighbors
were opposed- citing very real concerns about neighborhood character, home values, and
inadequate infrastructure for traffic and flooding- and that the city planning staff did not
submit their documents until the Friday before the meeting, providing inadequate time for the
public and the committee to thoughtfully review the proposal.
I respectfully request that GPA-SM-2-21-8 remain with its companion case Z-31-21-8 at the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee in the approval process and only move forward
once Mr. Poulsen and the neighbors have had more time to work together and resolve the
development concerns therein.
Jewel Clark
2020 West South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480.664.9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1140
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1141
From: Miguel Rubio
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens opposition lette
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:18:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique once again..
We are opposed to this project ,because it will affect us pretty bad, as we have a hard time getting
out of our property on 8020 s 20th ave , every time we get on the intersection of latona and 19th
ave , it takes forever for us to have access and having several hundred of vehicles is going to make it
worse.
That reason the we bough our property is because we like the rural life, and having all that people
living here next to us is going to affect me and my family.
The value on our property is going to decrease and is not what I want for me and my family.
We figth it over this with mister ward on the opposite corner, and this is going to be the same we
are a really good community , we stay together and this is what we want for our kids and grandkids.
This is one of the last places the still have the opportunity to have this privacy and this people is
trying to take it from us.
We are not opposed of them building we just wanted to preserve large lots and low density.
I am pretty sure that you guys would do the same for your family.
Thank you very much and have a great day.
MIGUEL RUBIO
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 2OTH AVE
PHX,AZ 85041
(602) 366 9334
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Miguel Rubio
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens
Good morning Miguel,
How are you? You may email me your opposition letter in regards to this project (Case Nos. GPA-SM-
Page 1142
2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8).
Let me know if questions arise.
Thank you!
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura gardens
Hello Enrique, this is MIGUEL RUBIO.
I would like to know where can I send my opposition letter to..?
Rb contracting llc
8020 s 20th Ave
Phoenix az, 85041
602 366 9334
Page 1143
Racelle Escolar
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
We live in Magdalena Estates, a group of homes immediately north of the planned Kimura Gardens development.
First – thanks to the Poulson group for engaging in ongoing conversations with us and our neighbors to best work out
how we all can be comfortable with inevitable change. They have been very attentive and have been patiently willing to
modify their plans.
In fact, a sizable group of neighbors met with Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate on the afternoon of Monday (11/29) at the
planned Kimura Gardens site to review our collective wants and needs. And, as of this writing, a telephonic conference
call is being scheduled for later this week.
Which brings me to my second, and main, point. The review process for these two requests (which go hand in hand) is
so compressed that it is ahead of the ongoing evolution of the plan. In other words, there has been no time to formalize
the modifications. This is not the fault of the Planning Commission or of any governmental organization, it is just a
timing issue. And timing issues can easily be remedied by taking a time out, which by no means is the same as denying a
request.
This is my request – can we please return to the Village Planning level with both requests and take a breath before any
further formal action is taken? We need this to give us a chance to help prepare the best possible development plan
which will be acceptable to the largest number of people and to present a concrete proposal rather than an ever
changing and amorphous concept. Procedurally and administratively, it makes most sense is these two requests are
kept in synch. Just as it makes the most sense for all the details to be in place before the concept it approved.
There is no one with whom I have spoken who opposes development, if the density and home sizes / construction are
consonant with The Commons and Magdalena Estates. We know growth and change are coming and, when properly
done, will bring benefits for everyone. The willingness of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate to sit and discuss and listen is
impressive and I am confident that by encouraging the design guidelines from the Rio Montana Plan for this area, the
Poulson group will find support. We purchased our home because of the demographics, the lot sizes, the quality of
construction, and the quiet rural nature of Magdalena Estates. Our goal is to continue that quality of life.
Thank you for considering my remarks. Based on comments from other neighbors, I can safely say that this represents
the perspectives of the majority of our community.
Page11144
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:13:51 PM
I'm commenting as a community resident near where Kimura Gardens will be built, to ask that
the approval process be slowed.
There are several concerns about this development that have yet to be answered, including
safety issues for current residents and future residents. The infrastructure in this area is simply
not prepared for 160 units and the estimated 300+ more drivers that would accompany them.
The intersection at South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue is already overwhelmed with just
two neighborhoods under 40 units each, as is South Mountain Lane, which is barely a lane and
a half.
Our community supports development that follows zoning R1-18 and layouts like that in
the Rio Montana Plan.
I believe more time would allow the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns.
Sincerely,
Steven Higginbotham
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1145
From: Dan Martin
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fwd: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:12:50 PM
Enrique,
I would like to concur with my neighbor that a request for a space between the neighborhoods
would be welcomed. One of the main reasons that I purchased a home in The Commons
community was that the homes did not face another home to their rear. This is why I paid
$100K more than my previous home situated in Laveen. Would it be possible to change the
road frontage setback to the West on 19th Avenue from 150 feet to 140 feet in order to provide
a 10 foot space with a walking path between the two neighborhoods? This essentially would
not change the design of the Kumura Gardens but shift it 10 feet to the West.
Sincerely,
Dan Martin
8612 S 16th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
513-305-0258
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: larry Brown
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:48 PM
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
To:
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Page 1146
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1147
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-31-21) and Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA-SM-2-21), Kimura Gardens
Development
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:31:27 AM
Hello and good morning -
Thank you for accepting my comments.
The Providence group has been very active in its outreach to neighbors during the planning to
develop the property immediately south of Magdalena Estates, where we live - this is greatly
appreciated. And, to be fair, they have listened and been responsive to the majority of concerns.
Although I am a member of Magdalena Estate's HOA Board, I have no authority to speak on behalf of
the community or our Board, only for our lot 13.
We have several points to make:
Everyone knows that there will be development. We are lucky to have enjoyed our relative isolation
for as long as we have. So, the goal is to maintain the property values and quality of life for those
who already live here.
The configuration of Kimura Gardens will set an important precedent for the future of this area. The
originally presented number of homes was 178 and has been reduced to 150. Still, that is very
dense, and the effect upon traffic, light, and noise is going to be significant. Frankly, I would prefer
that the density be the same as Magdalena Estates and The Commons to assure continuity within
this area.
A discussion point during the planning process has been whether the homes will be one or two
stories. I understand the economic ramifications of all single story construction. But the quality of
life consequences are also important - more stories means more people, more cars, more light,
more noise - all of which mitigate against maintaining the current quiet that we who already live
here enjoy.
No one walks away completely satisfied. But, please consider that if all the homes in Kimura
Gardens were one story, this would set a good precedent for the future of this area, it would
equalize the property values among the three developments (The Commons, Magdalena Estates,
and Kimura Gardens), it would create a relatively more tranquil and safe environment.
In sum - if a condition of zoning approval is that all homes are single story, we in lot 13 endorse the
other aspects of the development plan as we understand them.
Thank you.
JoAnne Jensen (480-213-6499)
Page 1148
Steven D. Smith
8303 S. 17th Drive
Phoenix AZ 85041
Page 1149
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-31-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting December 14, 2021
November 9, 2021 (Continued)
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in Addendum A
with a modification to Stipulation No. 9.
VPC Vote 7-3-1 Motion passed; Members Aldama, Brownell,
Busching, Shepard, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor;
Mr. Brooks, Coleman and Holmerud in dissent. Ms. Hare
abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Four members
registered in opposition, one neutral, and two in support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on
rezoning case Z-31-21-8. This case was continued from the November 9, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting, while the General Plan
Amendment case was heard by Planning Commission earlier this month. He
discussed the existing zoning in the area and requested zoning for the site. The
previous and current conceptual site plans were discussed, and an overview of
Addendum A staff report was provided. He concluded the presentation by
discussing the stipulation changes included in Addendum A of the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
provided an overview of the request. He discussed the location of the site,
changes made to the conceptual site plan including a decrease in lots and minor
adjustments to the layout. Previous versions of the site plan were compared to
the current version proposed, and he requested approval of the case given these
changes and community engagement.
Page 1150
Kay Shepard asked for clarification on landscape maintenance responsibilities.
Mr. Baugh responded that the future homeowner’s association (HOA) would be
responsible for the landscape maintenance.
Ms. Shepard discussed The Pines at South Mountain community not
maintaining their landscaping within private open space tracts. Mr. Baugh
responded that the HOA would be maintaining the landscaping and added that
there is a stipulation that addressed low-water use plants. He discussed why
flood irrigation was not incorporated in the development.
Marcia Busching discussed a modification to Stipulation No. 9 regarding the
removal of pedestrian gates.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for additional questions from the committee. She
then opened the floor for public comments on this case.
Jewel Clark, member of the public, lives in the area and would like to continue
the dialogue with the applicant. She provided clarification on a statement made
and asks that this case be continued due to a pending meeting between the
community, developer and Council District 8 office on December 15, 2021.
Mike Josic, member of the public, introduced himself and agrees with Ms. Clark.
He stated that the public outreach on this project was not very good. The
developer should not have set up the previous meeting on the site, but rather at
another location. He would support a continuance on this case.
Dean Chiarelli, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that this
area is in a food desert. Roads are not able to handle this development, which is
not consistent with the current General Plan and Food Action Plan. We need to
promote agriculture here as the area is beautiful, and this community is become
a bedroom community.
Dianne Olivo, member of the public, introduced herself and provided a
background of the area. Agriculture is precious and this project is not consistent
with policy plans. She would like to know why each member supports this project
when they vote. There is a toxic property south of this site that impacts existing
residents, and this has not been discussed.
Patti Trites, member of the public, introduced herself and stated that she is
concerned with access being provided along 19th Avenue due to an existing
trailhead south of the site. This area is unique and discussed planned Maricopa
County Flood Control District projects in the area along 19th Avenue. She would
request that there be no entrance along 19th Avenue for this project.
Troy Gamm, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that he lives in
The Commons community east of the project. He stated that this is one of the
Page 1151
nicest communities he has ever lived in. The builder is responsible, and he
supports the project.
Penny Gamm, member of the public, introduced herself and stated that this is a
nice development proposed in a former cotton farm that is used as a dumping
ground. People shoot guns on this property as well. Eventually this site will be
developed, and the builder is responsible. She is concerned with the continuance
of this case being requested.
Chairwoman Daniels invited the applicant to provide a response.
Mr. Baugh stated that a trail is proposed for this development, in addition to
disclosure of surrounding uses to future owners. He seeks approval of this case.
Ms. Busching asked Ms. Clark on what she hoped to accomplish by seeking a
continuance. Ms. Clark stated that density is an issue, and she wants to balance
this with the character of the area, traffic and drainage issues. She discussed the
latest version of the site plan and stated that this version was updated before the
applicant’s meeting with the neighborhood.
Mr. Baugh responded that staff had requested an updated site plan for
Addendum A staff report. Some of the community members did not respond to
their offer to address the number of lots. The current site plan reduces the traffic,
drainage and other issues.
Greg Brownell joined the meeting at 7:00pm, bringing the quorum to 11
members.
Vice Chair Marchuk stated that he finds interesting the Council District 8 office
meeting that is scheduled.
George Brooks feels that a continuance is appropriate given the pending
Council District 8 office meeting.
Ms. Shepard discussed the pending Council District 8 office meeting.
Greg Brownell stated that the pending Council District 8 office meeting is
pointless and discussed the efforts by the applicant in addition to benefits of this
project.
Edward Aldama discussed the applicant’s efforts and stated that the area is
changing. He wants to see positive change happen and added that the developer
has made changes to their plan.
Emma Viera agrees with deciding now as the Council District 8 office meeting
will not impact the decision made today.
Page 1152
Ashley Hare stated that change is not inevitable, and we can still have beautiful
open spaces like The Farm at South Mountain.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that this project has been active for over a year and
wonders about the street maintenance responsibility. Mr. Baugh responded that
the landscaping in the right-of-way would be HOA maintained.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that grocery stores look at the number of homes
and household incomes in an area before siting a new store. The community has
changed over time. Dr. Brooks disagrees with Chairwoman Daniels and stated
that change is up to decision makers.
Chairwoman Daniels requested for additional discussion or a motion.
MOTION:
Ms. Shepard motioned to approve case Z-31-21-8 per the staff recommendation
presented in Addendum A of the staff report with a modification to Stipulation No.
9 (a).6 to remove refences to pedestrian gates. Ms. Busching seconded the
motion to approve.
VOTE:
7-3-1, motion passed; Members Aldama, Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Viera, Marchuk
and Daniels in favor; Mr. Brooks, Coleman and Holmerud in dissent. Ms. Hare abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommend approval of the case
per the staff recommendation in Addendum A with a modification to Stipulation No. 9
to remove references to pedestrian gates.
The following stipulations incorporate the changes approved by the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee on December 14, 2021 with modifications in bold text:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
Page 1153
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 1154
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
Page 1155
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY THE STIPULATIONS AND
INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Page 1156
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
Page 1157
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 1158
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Page 1159
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-31-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 9, 2021
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continued to the December 14, 2021 South Mountain
Village Planning Committee meeting date
VPC Vote 9-2 Motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell,
Busching, Holmerud, Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels
in favor; Members Aldama and Shepard in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Three members
registered in opposition, one neutral, one in support with conditions and two in
support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation for the
Minor General Plan amendment case GPA-SM-2-21-8 and concurrent rezoning
case Z-31-21-8. He discussed the location of the site, noting surrounding land
uses, existing General Plan Land Use map designations, and the proposed
designation on the site. He discussed the existing zoning in the area and
requested zoning for the site. He discussed policy documents including the
General Plan and Rio Montaña Area Plan. The conceptual site plan for the
proposed single-family subdivision was shown, indicating vehicular plus
pedestrian access points, open space location, building height limitations, and lot
widths proposed. The conceptual building renderings were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation of approval for
both cases and describing the proposed stipulations for case Z-31-21-8, as
presented in the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the location and history of the site. He provided an overview of each
application, discussed the demand for housing, and surrounding zoning districts.
Page 1160
He discussed the site plan, proposed project features such as fencing elements,
building renderings, goals and policies from the General Plan and Rio Montaña
Area Plan. An overview of issues related to health, safety, connectivity,
appearance, walls, and energy savings was provided. A summary of public
outreach was provided, including site plan revisions made to accommodate
drainage and other elements. Roadway and flooding-related issues were
discussed, in addition to a new rezoning stipulation proposed regarding
pedestrian access to the Western Canal from South Mountain Avenue. He
concluded the presentation by providing a summary of the project and requested
approval of both cases.
Lee Coleman and Fatima Said left the meeting at 9:05pm, bringing the quorum to
11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if the committee had any questions for the applicant
or staff regarding these cases.
Gene Holmerud stated that this site is not a compound in the area.
Kay Shepard would like to see off-setting of lots and curvilinear streets for a
better community. Mr. Baugh responded that his team could address the off-
setting of the lots.
Lee Coleman asked for clarification on the development option used. He
discussed the development standards. Mr. Baugh responded that the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) option was used, and the project will follow all
development standards.
Marcia Busching is not in favor of gated communities and asked the following
questions:
• Does staff have concerns with the additional stipulation proposed by the
applicant?
• Can the fencing plan be stipulated?
• Do irrigation facilities have to be undergrounded?
Mr. Bojórquez responded that a closer review of the new stipulation would be
needed to determine if any conflicts arise. The Street Transportation Department
provided the stipulation which requires the undergrounding and relocation of
existing irrigation facilities outside of the right-of-way.
Greg Brownell stated that Mr. Baugh’s staff have done a good job. However,
Minor General Plan Amendment cases should be heard first before the rezoning
case to actively plan land uses. This is a staff problem as this is a bad way to
plan, but Mr. Baugh has done what the committee and staff should be doing. The
General Plan case should not have a companion case since this promotes a
Page 1161
suggestion on the land use. He will not vote in favor due to this procedure and
would reprimand staff if there was a formal way to do so.
Mr. Holmerud asked how water conservation was being considered. Mr. Baugh
responded that one of the stipulations limited the use of high-water use plants
such as turf.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked how the community concerns regarding the single-
story limitations was being addressed. Mr. Baugh responded that he would
agree that a minimum of 20-percent of the homes be kept at one-story.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Ms. Shepard’s comments.
Chairwoman Daniels asked of flood maps had been looked at in the area. Mr.
Baugh responded that flood maps were shared by Patti Trites and these were
reviewed. The canal bank and open space locations will help address flooding.
Chairwoman Daniels likes some gated communities. She asked if members of
the public wanted to speak on this case.
Jewel Clark, resident of the area, introduced herself and asked that staff no
longer share copies of presentation slides from the public with the developer
ahead of the meeting. She showed a brief presentation and discussed the
outcome of a previous rezoning case across the street, roadways, drainage, and
the Rio Montaña Area Plan. The area should remain with existing R1-18 and S-1
zoning. She discussed traffic and flooding issues at the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. She discussed a map depicting existing
zoning designations in the area and asked for these applications to be denied.
Mike Josic, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that in 2018 the
South Mountain VPC denied a similar rezoning request across 19th Avenue. He
asked for a 90-day continuance on the case to continue to work with the
developer. He lives in the area and would be affected. This project is not
appropriate here and liked the South Central TOD presentation. Tiny lots will
destroy the character of the area and do not reflect the existing character. There
was not enough time to meet with the developer, as he only participated once in
a virtual meeting about the project.
Erin Hegedus, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that 3 years
ago a similar conversation was had, and this project is not consistent with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan. She discussed proposed enhancements and lives across
the street from the project. She has not seen any planned improvements for the
site. She asked how this project will improve the community and stated that there
is a lack of trails now. Take a good look at this project as it will affect this
community and does not support this project.
Page 1162
Troy Gamm, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that this is a
good developer. This proposed project looks nice, has one-story limitations and
the main gate is along 19th Avenue. He supports this project.
Penny Gamm, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that this
project keeps the feel of the area. One-story homes are good and will help keep
the views, while allowing future residents a short commute to Downtown Phoenix
and providing good access for families. This builder is thoughtful on design and
provides a good housing product.
Steven Higginbotham, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that
he moved to this area because he enjoys recreation, and discussed the
comments made by the applicant regarding pedestrian and vehicular access. He
discussed the notification letter and feels that in general increasing the density of
the area is heading in the wrong direction. He discussed receiving the notification
letter recently and discussed his concerns.
Mr. Baugh stated that he met with Magdalena Estates early in the process and
the feedback received was incorporated from members of the public. He would
like to move forward in the process.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if he would consider continuing the cases. Mr.
Baugh responded that he has been working on these cases for 11 months now
and has incorporated much of the feedback received. He is unsure on what else
could be accomplished by continuing the cases.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that she is a native of Phoenix and has seen this
community grow. She expects it to continue growing into the future. She asked
for questions or further discussion from the committee.
MOTION – Z-31-21-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to continue case Z-31-21-8 to the December 14, 2021
meeting date. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion to continue.
DISCUSSION – Z-31-21-8:
Ms. Alvarez supports the continuance.
Mr. Brownell discussed decreasing lumber prices.
Mr. Holmerud is not in favor of the project.
Vice Chair Marchuk expressed concerns about the impact of the continuance
on the case.
Page 1163
Ms. Busching asked the applicant to address the following items before the next
meeting:
• Off-set the lots in the development.
• Further reduce the number of two-story homes, such as 20-percent of the
lots shall be two-story.
• Incorporate flood irrigation in common areas and lots.
• Update the landscape plan.
• Incorporate the pedestrian access stipulation proposed by the applicant.
VOTE – Z-31-21-8:
9-2, motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Holmerud,
Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor; Members Aldama and Shepard in
dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 1164
Attachment E
ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Dates: December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0) on December 2, 2021 to continue
this case to the January 6, 2022 meeting and allow the applicant to return to the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee for recommendation.
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this rezoning request on
December 14, 2021 and voted (7-3-1) to approve the case per Addendum A of the staff
report with a modification to Stipulation No. 9.a (6) regarding pedestrian gates.
As a result of the discussion at the December 14, 2021 Village Planning Committee
meeting and subsequent community outreach efforts, the applicant has provided an
updated site plan and a landscape plan, attached to this report, that depicts a decrease
in the number of lots from 156 to 149 on the subject site. Furthermore, the applicant has
increased the minimum lot width from 55 feet to 60 feet for all lots.
Due to these changes, staff recommends modifying the following stipulations:
Page 1165
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
x Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance to the updated site plan and
update to the minimum lot width;
x Stipulation No. 11. regarding general conformance to updated landscape plan.
Leading up to and following the December 14, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting, staff also received additional correspondence from the public
regarding this case. This additional correspondence is attached.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations, reflecting updates to the site
plan and landscape plan, provided below:
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department
with specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
Page 1166
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
Page 1167
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE
Page 1168
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
STIPULATIONS AND INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
Page 1169
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
Page 1170
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Exhibits
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped January 6, 2022 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped January 6, 2022
Correspondence from the public (19 pages)
Page 1171
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
W. BASELINE ROAD
-PARCEL NO. 1:
3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
LOT 6 OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE WEST 33 FEET CONVEYED TO MARICOPA COUNTY, BY QUIT CLAIM DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 361, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
S. 19th AVENUE
PARCEL NO. 2:
S. 15th AVENUE
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA PHONE: 480.734.1446
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
SITE
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY;
THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1
SITE PLAN NOTES S 7th AVENUE
SOUTH, RANGE 3 AST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THIS SITE WILL CONFORM WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND
COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCES.
2. ALL NEW OR RELOCATED UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND.
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE 3. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURED BACK 10' FROM THE PROPERTY
LINE AND 20' ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAYS ENTRANCES WILL BE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER SAID CORNER BEING MARKED WITH A CONCRETE MONUMENT ; W. DOBBINS ROAD
MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'
4. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURING 33'X33' ALONG THE PROPERTY
THENCE WEST (ASSUMEDBEARING) ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER
LINES WILL BE MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 938.38 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; 5. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE PLACED SO AS TO DIRECT LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL SECTION 6, T1S, R3E
DISTRICTS AND WILL NOT EXCEED ONE FOOT CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. NOISE, ODOR, OR VICINITY MAP
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 3 MINUTES WEST ALONG A FENCE 1296.60 FEET TO A POINT VIBRATION WILL BE EMITTED AT ANY LEVEL EXCEEDING THE GENERAL LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR N.T.S.
MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE SITE.
6. OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF=WAY WILL HAVE THE
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES 47 MINUTES EAST ALONG THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF A DITCH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ALL LANDSCAPING LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, IN
660.05 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. APPLICANT
7. ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND SATELLITE DISHES SHALL BE SCREENED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE
THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID DITCH 250.40 FEET TALLEST EQUIPMENT. NEWCASTLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; 8. ALL SERVICE AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED TO CONCEAL TRASH CONTAINERS, LOADING DOCKS, 6628 E. BASELINE ROAD
TRANSFORMERS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, AND OTHER MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SUITE 102
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID DITCH 596.80 FROM EYE LEVEL ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS.
MESA, AZ. 85206
FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST 9. BARBED, RAZOR OR CONCERTINA WIRE (OR SMALLER) SHALL NOT BE USED ON THIS SITE WHERE
QUARTER OF SECTION 6, SAID POINT BEING MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
10. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND PERMITS. NO SIGNS ARE APPROVED
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 16 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 142.93 FEET TO THE PER THIS PLAN.
POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
ENGINEER
EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN PROJECT DESCRIPTION BFH GROUP
CANAL.
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL SOUTH MOUNTAIN 50 IS A PROPOSED 156 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PRD MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
SITE ADDRESS PHONE: 480.734.1446
STANDARDS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED STANDARD CONTACT: DAVID M. BOHN
1835 W. SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
MIN LOT WIDTH (IN THE EVENT 45' MINUMIN (UNLESS APPROVED BY 60' PHOENIX, AZ. 85041
OF HORIZONTAL PROPERTY EITHER THE DESIGN ADVISOR OR THE
REGIMES, "LOT" SHALL REFER TO SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL APPEALS
THE WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE BOARD FOR DEMONSTRATING ENHANCED BENCHMARK
AND EXCLUSIVE USE AREA) ARCITECTURE THAT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT
CITY OF PHOENIX MONUMENT: 2INCH IRON PIPE WITH REBAR IN CENTER, LOCATED AT THE
OF THE GARAGE.
INTERSECTION OF 7TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE.
ELEVATION = 1190.72 (NGVD-29, CITY OF PHOENIX DATUM)
MINIMUM LOT DEPTH NONE, EXCEPT 110' ADJACENT TO FREEWAY 122'
OR ARTERIAL BASIS OF BEARING SITE SUMMARY
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, T.1S., R.3E., G.&S.R.B.&M.
DWELLING UNIT DENSITY 3.5; 4.5 WITH BONUS 3.00 DU/AC WHICH BEARING N 89° 43' 11" WEST, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE COMMONS AT GROSS AREA = 2,162,702 SQ. FT. OR 49.65 ACRES
(UNITS/GROSS ACRE) SOUTH MOUNTAIN" RECORDED IN BOOK 905, PAGE 34, MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS. NET AREA = 2,035,910 SQ. FT. OR 46.74 ACRES
EXISTING ZONING = S-1
MIN. PERIMETER BUILDING STREET (FRONT, REAR OR SIDE): 15' (IN STREET (FRONT, REAR OR SIDE) 15'; (IN PROPOSED ZONING = R1-10
SETBACKS ADDITION TO LANDSCAPE SETBACK); ADDITION TO LANDSCAPE SETBACK); PARCEL NUMBERS = 300-49-003C, -004, -005
PROPERTY LINE (REAR): 15' (1-STORY), 20' PROPERTY LINE (REAR) 15' (1-STORY) 20' NUMBER OF LOTS = 149
(2-STORY); (2-STORY), FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION LOTS AREA = 1,275,369.98 SQ. FT. (TOTAL)
PROPERTY LINE (SIDE): 10' (1-STORY) PROPERTY LINE (SIDE); 10' (1-STORY) PROPOSED DENSITY = 3.00 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
Page 1172
15' (2-STORY) 15' (2-STORY) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN SHADED ZONE "X" DEFINED AS "AREAS OF 0.2%
LOCAL STREET ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS LOT SALES PROPOSED = YES
OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREA COMMON AREA = 356,845 SQ. FT. (TOTAL) OR 16.5% (GROSS AREA)
COP DETAIL P1014 PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; PER FIRM MAP NO. 04013C2680L, RETENTION = ABOVE GROUND BASINS
COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK 15' AVERAGE, 10' MINIMUM (DOES NOT 15' AVERAGE, 10' MINIMUM (DOES NOT
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION A DATED OCTOBER 16, 2013.
ADJACENT TO PERIMITER STREETS APPLY TO LOTS FRONTING ONTO APPLY TO LOTS FRONTING ONTO
PERIMETER STREETS) PERIMETER STREETS)
MIN. INTERIOR BUILDING SETBACK FRONT: 10';REAR: NONE; (ESTABLISHED BY FRONT: 10';REAR: NONE; (ESTABLISHED BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE LEGEND
BUILDING CODE); STREET SIDE; 10' SIDES; BUILDING CODE); STREET SIDE; 10' SIDES;
NONE (ESTABLISHED BY BUILDING CODE) NONE (ESTABLISHED BY BUILDING CODE)
THIS PROPOSAL INTENDS TO SUBDIVIDE THE 49.5 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 156 SINGLE FAMILY BOUNDARY
LOTS. THESE LOTS WILL BE DEVELOPED UNDER R1-10 ZONING STANDARDS. PRD DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS. CENTERLINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
MIN. BUILDING SEPARATION NONE NONE
SERVICE PROVIDERS LOT LINE
MIN. GARAGE SETBACK 18' FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK FOR 18' FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK FOR EASEMENT
FRONT-LOADED GARAGES, 10' FROM FRONT-LOADED GARAGES, 10' FROM WATER CITY OF PHOENIX
PROPERTY FOR SIDE-LOADED GARAGES PROPERTY FOR SIDE-LOADED GARAGES SEWER CITY OF PHOENIX
POLICE CITY OF PHOENIX
FIRE CITY OF PHOENIX
MIN. GARAGE WIDTH FOR LOTS <60': 2 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS FOR LOTS <60': 2 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS ELECTRIC SALT RIVER PROJECT
>60' TO 70': 3 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS >60' TO 70': 3 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS >70':
>70': NO MAXIMUM NO MAXIMUM
SOUTH 19TH AVENUE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30' (EXCEPT THAT 3 2 STORIES AND 30' (EXCEPT THAT 3 STORIES TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
STORIES NOT EXCEEDING 30' ARE NOT EXCEEDING 30' ARE PERMITTED WHEN LOOKING NORTH
PERMITTED WHEN APPROVED BY THE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR FOR
DESIGN ADVISOR FOR DEMONSTRATING DEMONSTRATING ENHANCED
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURE. ARCHITECTURE.
LOT COVERAGE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES: 40% ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES: 40%
TOTAL 50% TOTAL 50%
COMMON AREAS MINIMUM 5% OF GROSS AREA 16.5%
ALLOWED USES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
REQUIRED REVIEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507,
AND SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 4 OR MORE AND SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 4 OR MORE
LOTS LOTS
STREET STANDARDS PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY(1) PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY(1)
ON-LOT AND COMMON COMMON RETENTION REQUIRED FOR COMMON RETENTION AREAS
RETENTION LOTS LESS THAN 8,000 SQ. FT. PER SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
LOOKING EAST
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS PERIMETER COMMON: TREES SPACED A PERIMETER COMMON: TREES SPACED A
MAXIMUM OD 20 TO 30 FEET ON CENTER MAXIMUM OD 20 TO 30 FEET ON CENTER
(BASED ON SPECIES) OR IN EQUIVALENT (BASED ON SPECIES) OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS, AND 5 SHRUBS PER TREE. GROUPINGS, AND 5 SHRUBS PER TREE.
1 OF 2
NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
NW COR SEC 6
BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE
FOUND
MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
20' SRP IRRIGATION
30' SEWER EASEMENT 4 RAYMOND / SHIRLEY BRANHAM
1 MAGDALENA ESTATES
PHONE: 480.734.1446
EASEMENT SRP IRRIGATION
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 3 EASEMENT 12'
UNSUBDIVIDED
30' SEWER WATERLINE
EASEMENT
1 2 ZONING: S-1
R1-18 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE. EASEMENT
APN: 300-46-007A
10' SRP IRRIGATION
4 EASEMENT
1 2 3 4 5 11
6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15
33' 20' IRRIGATION
R.O.W. EASEMENT 3
PW AGAIN, LLC
UNSUBDIVIDED 16
ZONING: S-1 149
APN: 300-17-009R
147 146 145 144 143 138 137 136 135 134 133
142 141 140 139
101 18
102 103 104 105 106 108 109 132
107 110 111
100 19
COMMONS AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN
SITE SUMMARY
33'
R.O.W. GROSS AREA = 2,162,702 SQ. FT. OR 49.65 ACRES
NET AREA = 2,035,910 SQ. FT. OR 46.74 ACRES
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
112 129 21 EXISTING ZONING = S-1
99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 PROPOSED ZONING = R1-10
PARCEL NUMBERS = 300-49-003C, -004, -005
ZONING: S-1 NUMBER OF LOTS = 149
113 LOTS AREA = 1,275,369.98 SQ. FT. (TOTAL)
Page 1173
PROPOSED DENSITY = 3.00 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
33' 22
19TH AVENUE
R.O.W. LOT SALES PROPOSED = YES
COMMON AREA = 356,845 SQ. FT. (TOTAL) OR 16.5% (GROSS AREA)
114 RETENTION = ABOVE GROUND BASINS
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
115 126
ARIZONA WORM FARM LLC. 116 24
UNSUBDIVIDED
117 124 25
ZONING: S-1
75 74 73 66 65
72 71 70 69 68 67 64
APN: 300-17-009H 76
118 123
119 122
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61
59 60 62
63 27
120 121
33'
R.O.W.
49 48 47 46 45 44 42 36 35
43 41 40 39 38 37 34 33 31 30
32 29
ANN H. KERR
UNSUBDIVIDED
ZONING: S-1
APN: 300-49-006J
SW COR SEC 6
ALUMINUM CAP FLUSH
FOUND
BRASS CAP FLUSH 2 OF 2
NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOUND
Page 1174
Racelle Escolar
From: Dianne Olivo
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Iamdirectlyacrossfromthisproposedproject.
IamopposedtotherezoningofagriculturepropertyitshouldremainaszonedagricultureAnd1dwellingperacrefor
followingreasons:
#1Densitywouldincreasestrainonalreadystretchedwaterresourcesespeciallyduringdrought.Thereshouldbean
impactstudyofthewateruseandneedsaswellasalltheotherreasonsi.e.trafficandespeciallythepollutionimpactof
adjacentneighbortosouth(producesmethanegas)intotheair.
2Ͳbuildoutirrigationthroughoutdevelopmenttoeach1acrelotandincreasepricingtooffset.
3ͲBottomlinethereisnoprovenneedformorenondescripthousinganywherecurrently.especiallytakingoutvaluable
agriculturalquicklydisappearinglandtobepavedunderasphaltaddingtoourclimatechangeandOͲZoneproblems
that’swhywehavezoningandhopefullyresponsiblepeopleontheboard
DianneOlivo
TDRANCH
8804S19thAve
Page11175
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; trentchristopher@gmail.com; Marcia Busching; twanna.bhna@yahoo.com; Greg Brownell;
edward@yourgreatestself.com; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: REquest to speak and comment: Z-31-21-8 GPA-SM-3-21-8
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:05:57 PM
Dear Enrique
I would like to register to at tomorrow's SMVPC.
I would like to also speak for Agenda Item # 6 & 7 for Z-31-21-8 companion case GPA -SM -
3-21-8
- Thank you in advance for contacting the Maricopa County Flood Control District and
looking at the flood maps of this property.
- Thank you also for keeping the entrance and exit into this new proposed community
off of 19th Avenue.
19th Avenue is the entrance to the South Mountain Trailhead: 19th Ave. (Ma-Ha-Tauk)
Trailhead at 10484 S. 19th Ave.
Per the COP own site: At more than 16,000 acres, South Mountain Park/Preserve is one of
the largest municipally managed parks in the nation and consists
of three mountain ranges - the Ma Ha Tauk, Gila and Guadalupe. The park boasts more
than 50 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding and mountain
biking. Additionally, the roadways throughout the park are a favorite for bicyclists.
- Safety and the beauty of South Mountain should be maintained as new development
happens in the area.
Many people - residents and visitors - utilize 19th Avenue as their entrance onto South
Mountain Trailhead.
Keep it safe. Do not allow entrance or exits onto 19th avenue for new developments.
- Flood Control and COP are also planning on a 66" storm drain pipe and catch basins
along 19th Avenue to South Mountain.
Keep 19th Avenue free of resident traffic as possible for safety.
- Please keep the South Mountain Area looking complementary to its surroundings;
1. Avoid block walls 'prison' effect around the new communities.
2. Please include plenty of plants/trees and Decorative Iron Fencing to surround the new
developments.
3. Please have interior green space for the new residents.
These three items - when done correctly - will enhance the area and match the unique
South Mountain Preserve Area.
Lets keep South Mountain Preserve beautiful.
Thank you.
Patti Trites
Homeowner at South Mountain
President of Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Page 1176
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1177
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura - case Z-31-21-8 (GPA-SM-2-21-8 is currently continued)
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 6:45:09 PM
I am asking for a continuance to this case.
The developer has recently met with the community but has submitted to the Council a different
plan that was discussed. I believe this project is being accelerated without documentation on what
the community is asking in order to maintain the character and diversity of our neighborhood.
I am extremely concerned with how the infrastructure is going to support this development in
addition to the existing, let alone the new homes that are currently under construction on South
Mountain Avenue and Dobbins Road.
These roadways are 1 to 2 lane roads that currently cannot support the traffic, I ask that you
consider this, and before approving further development, conduct a study plan in advance to
understand the impact, not only on the traffic but the heat island this and other developments are
creating.
Respectfullly,
Erin Hegedus
8630 South 19th Avenue
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1178
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
To: Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:45:30 PM
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
Best,
Rebekah
Page 1179
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 10:18:14 PM
Hello,
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
.
Steven Higginbotham
1804 w Magdalena Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1180
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8 Continuance Recommendation
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:54:18 PM
Hello -
This is to request a continuance for item Z-31-21-8, to rezone the 49.5 acre parcel on the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain to R1-18.
The community is in ongoing discussions with the Providence group, who is developing this parcel.
The current stipulations do not and will likely not be reflected in the final proposal, when all is said
and done. It is my feeling that the South Mountain Village Planning Committee should have the
opportunity to review the final version and make its recommendation to the Planning Commission
based on something that is more than notional.
We thank the Providence group for their time and attention to the neighbors and hope that we are
nearing completion of our talks.
We also believe that there is no harm done by taking a deep breath; by taking our time, we will get it
right rather than rushing into something which is ill-conceived and which may have unintended
consequences.
Please add me to the list of those requesting a continuance. A continuance is not a rejection, nor
does it equate with opposition. We know there will be development, we just want to be sure it is
appropriate to this area.
Thank you all very much for your efforts on behalf of our unique rural community.
JoAnne Jensen
8303 S. 17th Drive (Magdalena Estates)
Phoenix AZ 85041
480-213-6499
Page 1181
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: December 14: SMVPC Meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:45:32 AM
Attachments: Outlook-rmpvn2ah.png
Outlook-o00zkkho.png
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola:
I have been a South Mountain resident and homeowner for 9.5 years. I registered for the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting on December 14th and would like to
comment if possible. In case I cannot speak, I’m documenting my opposition to three
rezoning items. The Committee should disapprove rezoning to increase the number of
residential units. The proposed changes will cause excessive vehicle traffic and congestion on
the local streets. The new homes currently under construction in the surrounding area are
not even fully built yet, and there is already much traffic at the intersection where 19th
Avenue meets Dobbins Road. Many of the streets in the rezoning area were built as "country
roads" -- not meant for higher-density residential developments. In the future, there should
be a new traffic study when the latest homes along the Dobbins corridor (7th Avenue to Loop
202) are occupied.
The right developers for this land should integrate their plans within the current zoning. The
South Mountain area is a unique and historic location, and it is quickly becoming a generic
bedroom community with roads not built to meet the needs of higher-volume residential
developments.
_____________________________________________
Z-31-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-2-21-8)- OPPOSE
GPA-SM-3-21-8 (Companion Case Z-58-21-8)- OPPOSE
Z-58-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-3-21-8)- OPPOSE
_____________________________________________
Dean Chiarelli, Mobile phone 702-994-8077
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page 1182
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:40 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Opposition to Cases GPA-SM-3-21-8 and Z-58-21-8 - SMVPC meeting Dec. 14, 2021
HiEnrique,
Thankyou!Here'smyletterforKimura.
OppositiontocaseZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8,agendaitem#6
IamwritinginoppositiontotheKimuraGardensdevelopmentproject(casenumberreferencedabove)andto
requestacontinuanceforthereasonsstatedhere.
DespitethecommitteevotingtoapprovetheGeneralPlanAmendment(caseGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8),bothplansare
overwhelminglyopposedbythesurroundingcommunityfortheprincipalreasonthatthedensityiswholly
inappropriateforourareainadditiontoissuesoftraffic,flooding,andheatislandconcernsthathavenot
beenaddressed.Sincethelastcommitteemeetingtherehavebeenotherdevelopmentsthatkeepthe
communityopposedtotheplanassubmitted.
We'vehadsomechallengesinworkingwithWitheyMorrisandMr.Poulsentofindcommonground.
TheViceMayorisawareoftheneighborhood'sconcernsandhasarrangedameeting,whichhewillattend,for
theneighborsandMr.Poulsen/WitheyMorristotalkthroughouroutstandingissueswiththisdevelopment.
ThatmeetingisscheduledforWednesday,Dec.15.Acontinuanceuntilsuchtalksarecompleteisrespectfully
requested.
Sincerely,
JewelClark
2020W.SouthMountainAve.
Phoenix,AZ85041
ͲͲ
H.JewelClark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
OnTue,Dec14,2021,at8:16AM,EnriqueABojorquezͲGaxiolawrote:
GoodmorningJewel,
Howareyou?Thankyouforsendingoverthefollowinginformationonthesetwocases.Iwillsavea
copyinthecasefileandwillshareitwiththeSouthMountainVPCaswell.
Bytheway,theChairhasagreedtohearyourpresentationtonight.Iwouldanticipatemaybe2minutes
forthepresentation,butshewillassigntheactualtimetoallspeakers.
Page 1183
Racelle Escolar
From: Dean Chiarelli
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:24 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: SMVPC Meeting January 6th - Opposition Notice
ToSouthMountainVillagePlanningCommittee:
Re:MeetingThursday,January6th
Iamstronglyopposedtotheitemsindicatedbelowandrequesttospeak.
CasenumbersGPAͲSMͲ3Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ58Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems2and3).
CasenumbersGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems8and9).
Iamopposedtotheitemsbecauseofexcessivecongestiononsurfaceroads.TheSMVPCisauthorizing
excessiveapprovalsofrezoningintheareaintandemwithalackofnewculturalamenities/businessesto
enhancequalityoflifeinthearea.Theruralcharacteroftheareaisrapidlychangingfortheworst,andthisis
againsttheCityofPhoenixplanningcodesandFoodPlanforSouthPhoenix.Irespectfullyrequestanupdated
trafficstudywhichincludesactivityforhomescurrentlyunderconstructionintheDobbinsCorridor.Thereare
newhomesalongDobbinsRoadfrom16thStreetallthewaytotheLoop202whicharen'tevenbuiltyetthat
willincreasethecongestion.
IalsowanttoexpressconcerntheChairoftheCommitteestatedintheDecember2021meetingthatsheisa
RealtorwhogrewupinSouthPhoenix.ThereisanappearanceofbiastowardsapprovalofhigherͲdensity
residentialzoningforwhichtheChairmaypersonallybenefit.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed[nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page11184
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:47 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Iamwritingtorequestacontinuanceofthereferenced.Wehavehadverypromisingnegotiationswiththedeveloper,
however,weaskthataformalsubmissionofthechangesthedeveloperagreedtobepresentedtotheneighborbefore
thiscouncilvotes.
Respectfully,
ErinHegedus,CMRP
8630South19thAvenue
Phoenix,AZ85041
Page11185
Racelle Escolar
From: rob@copperstatemetals.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 items 8 and 9
4JAN2022
HonorablePlanningCommissionMembers:
WearewritingtovoiceouroppositiontotheKimuradevelopmentasitcurrentlystands.Ourconcernsaretheincrease
intrafficonstreetswhicharealreadyusedbeyondtheircapacity.Byanydefinition,portionsofSouthMountainAve.
and15thAve.areonlyonelaneandpoorlymaintained.AdditionallytheintersectionofSouthMountainand19thAve.
isalreadydangerousandwillonlygetworsewiththeadditionofwellover100homesinthisdevelopmentalone.We
wouldalsoasktheCommissiontoconsidertheeffectonthepropertyvaluesofthecurrentresidents.Mostlotsare1/4
acreandmoreinthearea,andmosthomesarewellover2200sfaswellassinglestoryonly.Allowingsmallerhomeson
smallerlotswillonlyexacerbatethecurrenttrafficanddrainageissuesintheareaandnegativelyimpacttheproperty
valuesoftheestablishedresidentsinordertoallowthedeveloperstomakemoremoney.Thisisnotgoodforthe
communityanditisnotjust.Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.
Respectfully,
RobertD.Barnes
GeniveveR.Tapia
8312S.18thLane
Phoenix,AZ85041
Page11186
Racelle Escolar
From: azleatherking
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:19 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Kimura project 19th ave
MynameisDonOlson,andIown8640s19ave,acrossthestreetfromtheproposedKimuraproject.Iamvehemently
opposedtothedensityofhomesbeingaskedforbythedeveloper.Thisareaisag/residential,andtheinfrastructure
doesnotsupportwhatisherenow,muchlessadding150houses.
GPAͲsmͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8
ZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8
Donolson8640s19ave,phx85041
6024345641
SentfrommyTͲMobile4GLTEDevice
Page11187
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:01 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Letter of opposition GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 (Agenda items 8 and 9)
IamwritingtoopposeGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems8and9)andrequestacontinuanceonbothcases.
ThesurroundingcommunityisstillindiscussionswithMr.PoulsenandWitheyMorrisonfinaldensityandheat
mitigationandtheViceMayorhasscheduledanothermeetingforustotrytofinalizeaplanthatboththedeveloperand
thecommunitycanlivewithJan.13.Duetotheholidays,ithasnotbeenfeasibletoarrangeanearliermeetingsinceour
lastoneDec.15.
TheassertionyoumayhearfromWitheyMorristhattheyhavebeenworkingwiththeneighborsonthisprojectfora
yearisnotaccurate.WitheyMorrisstarteddialogwiththebroadercommunitysurroundingthispropertyonlyintheFall
of2021,withlimitedchangesfromtheoriginalplansubmittedatthefirstSMVPCmeeting.
Forexample,AdamBaughincludedatimelineinhispresentationtotheSouthMountainVillagePlanningCommittee
thatreadinpart:
“Proposedsiteplandevelopedthroughextensiveoutreachandinputwithsurroundingresidents,additional
changesafterNovemberSMVPCduetoinputfromonͲsiteneighbormeetingandfollowͲupconversations.”
TheplanthatwasshownattheDec.14SMVPCmeetingwasstampedbytheCityPlanningOfficeNov.24,5daysbefore
thefirstneighborhoodmeetingonͲsitethathereferences.Thechangesonthatplanwerebasedoninputfromthe
SMVPC,NOTtheneighborhoodmeetingorfollowupconversations.Theneighborsneedtobeincludedinwhatever
changesaremadenext.
Thecommunitywouldlovetobedonewiththis,butbasedonthelastplanwehaveseen,itissimplynotacceptableto
theexistingneighbors.However,Iamoptimisticwecanfindcompromise.
SouthMountainisundertremendouspressurefromdevelopers,andweareswiftlylosingtheruralcharacterand
agriculturalpracticethatmakeitsuchauniqueplacetolive.Wehavealreadyboughtourpropertiesandbuiltto
preservethatopen,ruralsenseofplace.Wewanttoworkwithdevelopersinterestedinbuildingheretocreate
somethingthatfits.Wecanmakethathappenbutweneedyoutoholddevelopersaccountabletoworkingingoodfaith
withtheexistingcommunity.Wecandoit,butweneedmoretime.Pleasevotetocontinue.
Sincerely,
JewelClark
2020W.SouthMountainAve.
Phoenix,AZ85041
ͲͲ
H.JewelClark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11188
From:JoAnneJensen
Sent:Tuesday,January4,20225:08PM
To:PDDPlanningCommission
Cc:AdrianaGarciaMaximiliano;CouncilDistrict8PCC
Subject:GPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8/KimuraGardens
Helloandthankyoufortakingmycomments.
MynameisJoAnneJensen,ouraddressis8303So.17thDrive,PhoenixAZ85041;thisisinMagdalenaEstates,whichistotheimmediatenorthof
theparcelwhichtheProvidencegroupwishestodevelop,andwhichisthesubjectofthetworequests,namedabove.
IhavebeenoneoftwopointsofcontactbetweentheSouthMountainneighborsandtheProvidencegroupandthankMr.Poulsen,BenTate,and
AdamBaughoftheProvidencegroupfortheirpatientattentionthroughoutourdiscussions.
Itisimportanttonotethatthesediscussionsareongoingandinfact,thepresentstipulationsareoutofdatewithcurrentconversationsandlikely
agreements.Whatweneedmorethananythingisacontinuationsothatwecanmaintainprogresstowardresolvingourremainingdifferences.
Ifacontinuationisnotgranted,thenIcannotsupportthecurrentstipulations,particularlytheabsenceofrobustheatmitigationmeasuresandthe
presenceofahighnumberofdwellings.Tobeveryspecific–thisisnotanobjectiontothedevelopment,ortoafutureagreementregarding
stipulations,butsolelytothecurrentstipulations–densityandabsenceofheatmitigationefforts.
Generalconsensuswithinthiscommunityisthatresponsibledevelopmentinthefaceofclimatechangeandtheproximityofthewarmestlocation
inPhoenixmustnecessarilyincludeheatmitigationefforts.Onemightarguethatheatmitigationeffortsonone50acredevelopmentwillmakeno
difference–butthisisthekindofargumentwhichhasledtotoday’sproblemswithexcessiveheatandparchingconditions.Absentsufficient
stipulations,thisplanisunacceptable.
Neighborsdonotobjecttodevelopment,perse,howeverwefeelitshouldbeinkeepingwiththeRioMontanageneralplan,whichwasinplace
whenweeachdecidedtoinvestinthisruralandagriculturalpartoftown.Thereisageneralsensethattheconcernsofcurrentresidentsand
businessownersarebeingsetasidetomeeteconomicinterestsofthedeveloper.WewouldnothaveobjectedtoR1Ͳ18zoning.Indeed,wewould
nothaveobjectedtoR1Ͳ18withbonus,whichwouldhaveenabled114dwellings,asthatissimilartothetwoadjacentdevelopments,The
Commons(which,incidentally,isalsoaProvidencedevelopment)andMagdalenaEstates.However,wedonotsupportthebuildingof156homes,
asthestipulationcurrentlyreads.Mr.PoulsenandtheProvidencegrouphavearguedthattheyhavebeenmakingmanyconcessions–fromtwo
storiestoone,from180unitsto173to156,andtheseareappreciated.However,theneighborslikewisefeelthatdensitybeyondR1Ͳ18with
bonusisasignificantconcession.
WeareconcernedthatthelastCitytrafficstudyinthisareawithinthe2012–2013timeframe.Sincethen,quiteafewhomeshavebeenbuiltand
webelievethattheadditionofthisdevelopmentatthecurrentlyrequesteddensitywillleadtoevenmoretrafficcongestionthanwealready
experience.Atpresent,thethoroughfaresarewoefullyinadequatetosupportthislevelofgrowthanddevelopersarerequiredtoimproveonly
thelengthsofpavementparalleltothedevelopmentpropertyline.Webelievethatthelackofuniformitywillnotbesufficienttoprovidesafeand
uncongestedtrafficflowsoneither19thAvenueorSouthMountain.
Insummary–myprimaryrequestisthatthePlanningCommissionissuesacontinuationforthetwoaboveͲreferencedrequestssothatthe
neighborsandtheProvidencegroupcanpursueongoingdiscussionsandcometoareasonableresolve.Again,wedonotobjecttodevelopment,
perse,butwerequesttimetoachievethisgoal.
Thankyouforyourtimeandattention.
JoAnneJensen
Cell–480Ͳ213Ͳ6499
Email–joannejensen@cox.net
Page11189
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Ilivenear19thAvenueandSouthMountainandIsupportcontinuanceforcasesZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8andGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8(aka
KimuraGardens)onthefollowinggrounds:discussionsbetweendiscussionsbetweenthecommunityandthe
developersareongoingandthecurrentlysubmittedstipulationsarenotonlyinconsistentwiththoseconversationsbut
alsoinadequateforthesafetyandqualityoflifeofthiscommunity.
Best,
Rebekah
Page11190
Racelle Escolar
From: Ravi Sharma
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:03 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: Item # 2 and Case # GPA-SM-3-21-8, Item #3 and Case # Z-58-21-8, Item # 8 and Case #GPA-SM-2-21-8
(Continued from 12/2/2021), Item # 9 and Case #
ZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Continuedfrom12/2/2021)
Weareopposedtotheproposedchanges.
Dr.RaviandMrs.SnigdhaSharma
Page11191
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Ilivenear19thAvenueandSouthMountainandIsupportcontinuanceforcasesZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8andGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8(aka
KimuraGardens)onthefollowinggrounds:discussionsbetweendiscussionsbetweenthecommunityandthe
developersareongoingandthecurrentlysubmittedstipulationsarenotonlyinconsistentwiththoseconversationsbut
alsoinadequateforthesafetyandqualityoflifeofthiscommunity.
ͲͲ
StevenHigginbotham
Page11192
Page 1193
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-31-21-8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
From: S-1
To: R1-10
Acreage: 49.52
Proposal: Single-family detached residential community
Applicant: Providence Homes
Owner: Newcastle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Reports.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 11/9/2021 Continued to December 14, 2021. Vote: 9-2.
South Mountain 12/14/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modified
stipulation. Vote: 7-3 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with an
additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-31-21-8, per the
Addendum B Staff Report, with the additional stipulation as read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. This proposed development provides a housing option that is consistent with
development patterns in the general area.
2. As stipulated, the proposed development is generally consistent with design policies
and the intent of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
3. This proposed development is appropriately located along an arterial street, 19th
Avenue, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
Page 1194
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department with
specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required canal
frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area at
a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a door
or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
Page 1195
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent to
a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of solid
masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the wall
shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted with
a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot
wide pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the
sidewalk at 19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street
intersection. This pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized
granite, decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch
caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape
Page 1196
tract and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative
pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private yards on
individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE
STIPULATIONS AND INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 1197
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the
east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT)
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work with the Site
Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the technical
appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY, REASONABLE,
SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. The form and content
Page 1198
of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which
have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
25. from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10
FEET.
28. 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 1199
Attachment G
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ GPA-SM-2-21-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION (Continued from opposition x applicant
12/2/2021) and
Z-31-21-8
(Continued from
12/2/2021)
Southeast corner of
19th Avenue and
South Mountain
Avenue
PC January 6, 2020 West South Mountain Avenue
APPEALED FROM: 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85041
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC February 2, 2022
HEARING H. Jewel Clark
480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Doesn't conform to 2015 General Plan for density and rural character. Splits
contiguously zoned S-1 & R1-18 community. Does not preserve/enhance
neighborhood character and certainty for existing community. Negotiations are
ongoing between neighborhood and developer and approval as submitted is
premature.
RECEIVED BY: Nayeli Sanchez RECEIVED ON: January 12, 2022
Alan Stephenson Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Diana Hernandez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Page 1200
Page 1201
Attachment H
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC; Arizona Republic; Helen Jewel Clark; mijosic@fastmail.fm;
JoAnne Jensen; Dianne & Ted Olivo; steamboat332@msn.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Arizona Republic;
AZleatherking@aol.com; Rebekah Higginbotham
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:18:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
I have to say I have not witnessed such obvious bias since I lived in the east coat.
Allowance for developers to speak
Commissioners asking developers how much time they needed and then offering citizens one
minute.
I am very concerned regarding our council members and the entre planning commission that seems
to support developers and have no respect to our citizens
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 4:53:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Good afternoon,
How are you? I hope you are doing well. I am reaching out in regards to case Z-31-21-8, scheduled
for tonight’s Planning Commission (PC) meeting, to inform you that the applicant has submitted an
updated site plan and landscape plan for this project. Staff has drafted an updated report
(Addendum B – please see attached) that reflects updates to the stipulations on the case that were
approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee in December of 2021.
This report will also be presented to the Planning Commission (PC) ahead of tonight’s meeting, in
addition to correspondence from the public received on this case.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this report.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
Page 1202
Southeast Corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Ordinance G-
6959)
Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section
601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning Application Z-31-21-
8 and rezone the site from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to R1-10 (Single-
Family Residence District) to allow a single-family detached residential community.
This file is a companion case and must be heard following GPA-SM-2-21-8.
Summary
Current Zoning: S-1
Proposed Zoning: R1-10
Acreage: 49.52 acres
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential community
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on Nov.
9, 2021 and recommended a continuance by a vote of 9-2. The South Mountain
Village Planning Committee heard this case again on Dec. 14, 2021 and recommend
approval, per the staff recommendation per the Addendum A Staff Report with a
modified stipulation, by a vote of 7-3-1.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021 and
recommended a continuance, by a vote of 8-0. The Planning Commission heard this
case on Jan. 6, 2022 and recommend approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with
an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed on Jan. 12, 2022.
Location
Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Council District: 8
Page 1040
Parcel Addresses: 1835 W. South Mountain Ave.
Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Ginger Spencer and the Planning and
Development Department.
Page 1041
ATTACHMENT A
THIS IS A DRAFT COPY ONLY AND IS NOT AN OFFICIAL COPY OF THE FINAL,
ADOPTED ORDINANCE
ORDINANCE G-
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-31-21-8) FROM S-1 (RANCH OR FARM
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R1-10 (SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT).
____________
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX, as
follows:
SECTION 1. The zoning of a 49.52-acre site located at the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue in a portion of Section 6, Township
1 South, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed
from “S-1” (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to “R1-10” (Single-Family Residence
District).
SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to
modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification
change as shown in Exhibit “B.”
SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use
district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,
Page 1042
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped January 6, 2022, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any
required canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as
open space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry
features, shall be provided along the western perimeter property line
along 19th Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-
inch caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees,
20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to one story and 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design
Review, including 75-foot-wide lots, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent
materials and textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as
brick, stone, colored textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to
provide a decorative and aesthetic treatment.
Page 1043
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall
provide a covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60
square feet in area at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall
terminate within the plane of a door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit
(landscape plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified
by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is
adjacent to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination
of solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion
of the wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots
along South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots
along South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet
solid and topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides
planted with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a
minimum of 250-square feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described
below and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of
the site via a centralized pathway.
Page 1044
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-
foot wide pedestrian pathway that connects the development with
the sidewalk at 19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the
street intersection. This pathway shall be constructed of
decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or similar alternative material. The landscaped
tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a
minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent groupings, along both
sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide
landscape tract and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material.
(6) The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Western
Canal along the southeastern property line and pedestrian access
along both 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. The
pedestrian shall be connected to the internal pedestrian pathways
by accessible sidewalks.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10
percent of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf
or high-water use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common
open space areas, including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping
located within private yards on individual lots.
11. Open space areas shall be in general conformance with the landscape plan
date stamped January 6, 2022, as modified by the stipulations and
incorporating the following amenities, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic
table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip
located between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross
Page 1045
Section of the Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum
five-foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb
and planted to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide
shade to a minimum 75 percent at maturity.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage at
maturity.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE)
along the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide
multi-use trail (MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG
supplemental detail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. The developer shall work with the Site Planning section on an
alternate design for this requirement through the technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the
east side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south
half of South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
Page 1046
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to
the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner
of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
shall be undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact
SRP to identify existing land rights and establish appropriate process to
relocate facility. Relocations that require additional dedications or land transfer
require completion prior to obtaining plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural uses. These documents must advise
purchasers that, under Section 3-112(E), Arizona Revised Statues, the City of
Phoenix may not declare an agricultural operation conducted on farmland to be
a nuisance if the agricultural activity use is lawful, customary, reasonable, safe
and necessary to the agriculture industry. The form and content of such
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recordation.
22. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclosure to purchasers of property within the development the existence and
operational characteristics of the Phoenix Regional Police Academy Gun
Range. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed by the City
prior to recordation.
23. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or
tenants of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be
according to the templates and instructions provided which have been
reviewed and approved by the City Attorney.
24. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of
Phoenix Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed
by the City Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
Page 1047
25. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction
analysis review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans
approved by the Planning and Development Department.
26. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the
Archeology Office to properly assess the materials.
27. The developer shall dedicate right-of-way and construct one bus stop pad
along northbound 19th Avenue towards the south end of the site. The bus stop
pad shall be constructed according to City of Phoenix Standard Detail P1260
with a minimum depth of 10 feet.
28. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.
SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or
portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the
decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity
of the remaining portions hereof.
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 2nd day of February,
2022.
________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney
Page 1048
By:
_________________________
_________________________
REVIEWED BY:
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)
Page 1049
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-31-21-8
PARCEL NO. 1:
LOT 6 OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH,
RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
PARCEL NO. 2:
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6,
TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY;
THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION
6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE
AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER SAID CORNER BEING MARKED WITH A CONCRETE
MONUMENT;
THENCE WEST (ASSUMEDBEARING) ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 938.38 FEET TO A
POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 3 MINUTES WEST ALONG A FENCE 1296.60 FEET
TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES 47 MINUTES EAST ALONG THE NORTHWEST
SIDE OF A DITCH 660.05 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID
DITCH 250.40 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID
DITCH 596.80 FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST
QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, SAID POINT BEING
MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE;
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 16 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 142.93
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
THE WESTERN CANAL.
Page 1050
Page 1051
Attachment B
Staff Report Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District)
(49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence District)
(49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
General Plan Conformity
Current: Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per
acre
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
Proposed (GPA-SM-2-21-8): Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per acre
19th Avenue Arterial Street 33-foot east half street
Street Map Classification South 0-foot south half street
Mountain Local Street (roadway easement widths
Avenue vary)
Page 1052
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES & NEIGHBORHOODS CORE VALUE;
CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Promote neighborhood identity
through planning that reinforces the existing landscaping and character of the area.
Each new development should contribute to the character identified for the village.
As stipulated, the development will promote neighborhood identity by incorporating density
and building height limitations, landscape enhancements, large perimeter lots, and
decorative fencing, among other enhancements. These will also promote the agrarian
character of the area and vision of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND USE
PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity, respectful of local
conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.
The proposal for a single-family detached residential community would allow development
of a housing product that is consistent with other single-family uses in the area. As
stipulated, the development will incorporate wide perimeter lots and open space areas,
enhanced landscaping and height restrictions, which will also help to provide a transition
from the proposed development to adjacent residential properties and to respect local
conditions.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new development
and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposal, will be required to provide shade along the adjacent public sidewalks and
pedestrian pathways located within or adjacent to open space tracts. This will help to
encourage walking and to mitigate the urban heat island effect by covering hard surfaces,
thus cooling the micro-climate around the project vicinity.
Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Rio Montaña Area Plan: See Background Item No. 4.
Tree and Shade Master Plan: See Background Item No. 10.
Complete Streets Guidelines: See Background Item No. 11.
Page 1053
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Zero Waste PHX: See Background Item No. 12.
Housing Phoenix: See Background Item No. 13.
Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Agricultural S-1
North (across South Single-family residential and
R1-18 and S-1
Mountain Avenue) vacant
South Agricultural S-1
East Single-family residential S-1 (Approved R1-18)
West (across 19th Agricultural, single-family
S-1, S-1 (Approved R1-18)
Avenue) residential and vacant
R1-10 – Single-Family Residential District
(Planned Residential Development Option)
Provisions on the
Standards R1-10 Requirements
proposed site plan
Gross Acreage - 49.52 acres
Total Maximum Number of 223 units 160 units (Met)
Units
Maximum Density 3.5 dwelling units per acre, up 3.23 dwelling units per acre
to 4.5 with bonus (Met)
Minimum Lot Width 45 feet 55 feet (Met)
Minimum Lot Depth 110 adjacent to arterial 119 (Met)
Maximum Building Height 2 stories and 30 feet Not specified**
Maximum Lot Coverage 40 percent, up to 50 percent Not specified*
including attached shade
structures
Page 1054
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
MINIMUM BUILDING SETBACKS
Perimeter Streets: 15 feet 19th Avenue: 170 feet (Met)
(19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue) South Mountain Avenue:
15 feet (Met)
Interior Perimeter Property Rear: 15 feet (1-story), Not specified*
Lines: 20 feet (2-story)
(Side and Rear)
Side: 0 feet (1-story), 15 feet
(2-story)
MINIMUM LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AND STANDARDS
Adjacent to street (19th 15 feet average, 10 feet 19th Avenue: 15 feet (Met)
Avenue and South minimum
Mountain Avenue) South Mountain Avenue: 15
feet (Met)
Minimum Common Area 5% of gross site area 17% (Met)
*Variance or site plan revision required.
**Staff recommend Stipulation No. 4 to limit the maximum building height in the
development to one story and 20 feet or two stories and 30 feet, depending on the
location of the lot.
Background/Issues/Analysis
SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 49.52 acres located at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue from S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence District) to R1-10
(Single-Family Residence District) for single-family residential uses. The site is
presently used for agricultural purposes.
In 1960, the subject site was annexed into the City of Phoenix from unincorporated
Maricopa County and zoned S-1. Historic aerial imagery shows that the site was
historically utilized for agricultural uses.
SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The surrounding area contains a variety of agricultural and residential zoning districts
including S-2 (Ranch or Farm Commercial District), S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District), R1-18 (Single-Family Residence District), and R1-10 (Single-Family
Residence District). Properties north and west of the site, across 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue, are zoned S-1 and S-1 (Approved R1-18).
Page 1055
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
The property south of the
site is zoned S-1, while the
property east of the site is
zoned R1-18.
Approximately 0.1 miles
north and northeast of the
site are properties zoned
R1-10. Furthermore,
properties to the southeast
of the site, across the
Western Canal, are zoned
R1-10. Lastly, numerous
properties south of Dobbins
Road, along 19th Avenue,
are also zoned R1-10.
Zoning Aerial Map, Source: Planning and Development
Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATIONS
3. The General Plan Land Use
Map designation for the
subject site is Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre,
which is not consistent with
the proposed R1-10 zoning
district. Thus, a concurrent
Minor General Plan
Amendment case GPA-SM-
2-21-8 proposes to change
the land use map
designation to Residential 2
to 3.5 dwelling units per
acre. North, south, east and
west of the site is
designated as Residential 1
to 2 dwelling units per acre. General Plan Land Use Map, Source: Planning and Development
Southeast of the site is Department
designated Parks/Open
Space – Publicly Owned
along the Western Canal.
Page 1056
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
4. Rio Montaña Area Plan
The Rio Montaña Area
Plan encourages
preservation of the rural
character of the area and
incorporates transition
zones to protect desert and
open space areas. The
plan also encourages
pedestrian and equestrian
activities through a network
of trails and aspires to
develop a sense of Rio Montaña Area Plan, Source: Planning and Development
community while Department
encouraging investment in
the community.
The Rio Montaña Area Plan intends to accomplish this vision through seven goals
that include:
1. Promoting balanced, high quality development;
2. Protecting and improving neighborhoods through maintenance, rehabilitation
and infill projects;
3. Keeping a distinctive character that reflects the diversity in its equestrian
heritage, culture, history and architecture;
4. Protecting the rural character, the Sonoran Desert and the riparian potential of
the Rio Salado Habitat Restoration Project;
5. Promoting future business development and economic growth;
6. Developing the tourism industry through a wide range of opportunities;
7. Providing a variety of transportation options.
The site is centrally located and designated by the land use map as Residential 1 to
2 dwelling units per acre within the Plan. As previously mentioned, a concurrent
General Plan Land Use Map amendment case GPA-SM-21-8 proposes to change
this designation to Residential 2 to 3.5 dwelling units per acre. Per the proposed
stipulations, the development will incorporate wide perimeter lots along the north and
east property lines, provide a wide open space area along the western perimeter,
require pitched roofs to be incorporated on all buildings, incorporate one-story
limitations and open view fencing elements along the perimeter streets. These
elements will help provide an appropriate land use transition consistent with
development patterns in the area, while furthering many of the goals of the Rio
Montaña Area Plan.
Page 1057
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
PROPOSAL
5. The proposal is to develop a 160-lot, single-family detached residential subdivision
with street access points along 19th Avenue on the west and South Mountain
Avenue on the north. A density of 3.23 dwelling units per acre is depicted in the
proposed site plan, which also depicts a variety of lot widths ranging from 55 feet to
75 feet in width.
Conceptual Site Plan with Planning and Development Department annotations,
Source: BFH Group
Conformance to the conceptual site plan provided by the applicant is recommended
by staff to provide certainty in how the project will develop and also to preserve the
perimeter transitions along the north, east and west property lines via 75-foot-wide
perimeter lots or deep open space areas. Open space areas are also provided
throughout the site for easy access by future residents. Furthermore, enhanced
building setbacks along 19th Avenue will ensure that future homes will be placed
more internally within the site to create an open feel along this part of the
Page 1058
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
development. Stipulation No. 1 addresses conformance to the site plan.
Staff also recommends Stipulation No. 2 which addresses landscaping
enhancements along perimeter landscape setbacks that will help screen the site
from existing residential homes in the neighborhood.
Lastly, Stipulation No. 3 as recommended by staff, will limit the building height to
two stories and 30 feet, except for lots along the perimeters which shall be one story
and 20 feet in height. These stipulations will help provide appropriate an transition
from existing residential uses in the area, and further the goals for the Rio Montaña
Area Plan by protecting existing neighborhoods and maintaining an distinctive
character plus scale.
6. No conceptual building elevations were submitted by the applicant, but renderings of
the housing product envisioned on this site were submitted. These renderings depict
a variety of architectural styles, with various colors and textures proposed. These
renderings also show one and two-story housing products.
Staff does not recommend conformance to these building renderings, as details of
building materials and other design elements were not included. However, staff
recommends that all lots, including 75-foot wide lots, be subject to the Single-Family
Design Review standards outlined in Section 507 Tab.A. II. of the Zoning Ordinance.
This is addressed in Stipulation No. 4.
Furthermore, staff recommends Stipulation No. 5 to require that all building
elevations incorporate several enhancements including: multiple colors, exterior
accent materials, and textural differences that exhibit quality and durability.
Page 1059
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Stipulation No. 5 also requires
that a minimum of 50 percent
of the elevations for each
floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the
front yard. This design feature
will reinforce community
orientation, consistent with
the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
Conceptual Building Renderings, Source: Not specified
7. A fencing exhibit was submitted as part of this request, depicting various materials
and fencing elements. Full open view fencing is proposed along 19th Avenue, while a
combination of solid and open view fencing is proposed along South Mountain
Avenue and other internal open space areas. These elements will increase visibility
within these areas and promote an open feel both within the community and along
adjacent streets. Staff recommends conformance to this fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) in Stipulation No. 6 in order to ensure that these fencing elements are
incorporated into this community.
Page 1060
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Conceptual Landscape Exhibit (Landscape Plan), Source: ela
The development proposes vehicular access to the community along 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue. In order to promote a sense of place for future
residents, Stipulation No. 7 recommends that each of the vehicular entryways
incorporate decorative materials. Furthermore, staff recommend Stipulation No. 8 to
require enhanced landscaping on both sides of each entryway into the development
containing a variety of plant materials for visual interest.
Page 1061
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
8. Staff recommends various pedestrian connections and enhancements throughout the
community to promote recreation, walking and alternative transportation methods.
Stipulation No. 9 addresses the following connections to/between:
Amenity areas;
Sidewalks;
Centralized pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portion of
the site;
Shaded pedestrian path that connects to either 19th Avenue or South
Mountain Avenue near this intersection.
Pedestrian pathway connecting to the Western Canal.
9. The conceptual site plan also depicts various open space areas distributed
throughout the development for future residents to enjoy. Staff is recommending
Stipulation No. 10 to limit the use of high-water use plants within common landscape
areas to help conserve water and to allow the applicant to strategically place plants,
such as turf, in areas of high activity and retention basins, among other areas. Staff
recommends Stipulation No. 11 to require several amenities distributed throughout
the development including:
Tot lot with shade equipment;
Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
Four benches or seating features;
Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
These amenities will promote the health of future residents by providing recreational
opportunities through various activities, allowing the enjoyment of sunlight, and
having a communal space that enables social interactions.
STUDIES AND POLICIES
10. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached from the
curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to provide thermal
comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island effect. Staff is
recommending several stipulations designed to provide trees and enhance shade
within the development.
Staff is recommending stipulations for enhanced landscaping and shaded sidewalks
along the perimeter property lines as follows:
Page 1062
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Fifty-percent two-inch caliper and 50-percent three-inch caliper trees within the
required landscape setbacks (Stipulation No. 2);
Shaded pathway connecting the community to or near the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue (Stipulation No. 3);
Tot lot amenity with shade equipment (Stipulation No. 11);
The sidewalks along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
detached and shaded a minimum of 75 percent with two-inch caliper trees
(Stipulation No. 12 and 13).
11. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. This development will help to
pedestrianize the immediate street frontages by providing shaded detached
sidewalks and constructing a multi-use trail plus dedicating a multi-use trail easement
along 19th Avenue to promote recreation in the area. This trail will help to establish a
new trail alignment that could connect the trails along South Mountain Avenue to
Dobbins Road in the future, as other properties along 19th Avenue develop. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 14.
12. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero-waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
expand its recycling and other waste diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix
Zoning Ordinance establishes standards to encourage the provision of recycling
containers for multifamily, commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain
criteria. The application materials submitted by the applicant indicate that recycling
facilities will be available to residents.
13. Housing Phoenix
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid population
growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000 new housing
units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a primary reason
why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development supports the Plan’s
Page 1063
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by contributing to a
variety housing types that will address the supply shortage at a more rapid pace
while using vacant land in a more sustainable fashion.
Stipulation No. 1 would allow the developer to construct up to 160 single-family
detached residential units. If this development is approved, it would allow further
diversity in housing products within the area and new housing choice for existing and
new residents to the area.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
14. As of the writing of this report, staff received 15 letters in opposition, one letter of
support, a support petition with 22 signatures and two letter listing concerns and
recommendations. The letters of concern cited issues with land use compatibility due
to the rural nature of the area, density concerns, impacts to existing neighbors,
inadequate infrastructure, increased traffic, inadequate services for the area, impacts
to property values, regional drainage impacts, notification concerns, and lack of
conformance to the Rio Montaña Area Plan. One of the letters in opposition was
conditioned upon lowering the density to no more than three dwelling units per acre
on the site.
The letter of support cited the proposed density and housing affordability as reasons
to support the project. The 22 signatures in support were signed by residents of the
adjacent subdivision to the east of this site. Other letters received contained
comments pertaining to neighborhood outreach and listed other concerns pertaining
to drainage, notification, project justification, compatibility, and conformance to the
Rio Montaña Area Plan.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
15. The Public Transit Department provided comments pertaining to pedestrian
pathways connecting building entrances and public sidewalk via the most direct
route. Also, comments were provided to recommend alternative paving material
where pedestrian pathways cross drive aisles, and providing a minimum of 75
percent shade along pedestrian paths, including public sidewalks. These comments
are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 7, 9, 12 and 13.
16. The Street Transportation Department provided comments pertaining to detached
sidewalks along adjacent streets. Other comments provided pertained to adjacent
right-of-way dedication and street construction, overhead utility undergrounding,
junction box installation at street intersections, relocation of irrigation facilities, and
other general street improvement requirements. These comments are addressed in
Stipulation Nos. 12, 13, and 15 through 20.
Page 1064
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
17. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case and
that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the 2018 International Fire Code with
Phoenix Amendments. Further, the Department commented that they do not know
the water supply at this site and noted that additional water supply may be required
to meet the required fire flow per the Fire Code.
18. The Water Services Departments commented that there are water and sewer mains
that can potentially serve the development. However, capacity is a dynamic condition
that can change over time due to a variety of factors. Furthermore, the City intends to
provide water and sewer service, requirements and assurances for which are
determined during the site plan review process. For any given property, water and
sewer requirements may vary over time to be less or more restrictive depending on
the status of the City’s water and sewer infrastructure.
19. The Floodplain Management division of the Public Works Department did not have
any comments on this case.
OTHER
20. The subject site is within close proximity to properties used for farming or agricultural
uses, thus potentially leading to dust, odors or other impacts to future residential
uses on the site. Stipulation No. 21 would require the disclosure to purchasers of
property and tenants within the development, the existence and operational
characteristics of agricultural uses in the area.
21. The Aviation Department requires that the property owner record a Notice to
Prospective Purchasers of Proximity to Airport in order to disclose the existence,
and operational characteristics of City of Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport
(PHX) to future owners or tenants of the property. Furthermore, that an avigation
easement is dedicated to the City of Phoenix as this property is within the PHX
International Airport traffic pattern airspace and seeking noise sensitive land use.
Lastly, that a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development be provided
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process.
These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 22, 23 and 24.
22. The site is not identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the event
archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground disturbing
activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery and the City of Phoenix
Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to properly assess
the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 25.
23. The developer shall provide a hydraulic/hydrologic analysis of offsite storm water
flows, when present, at the time of preliminary site plan submittal for verification of
Page 1065
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
required infrastructure regarding lot space and density.
24. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements such as obtaining a
use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this zoning district. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.
Findings
1. This proposed development provides a housing option that is consistent with
development patterns in the general area.
2. As stipulated, the proposed development is generally consistent with design policies
and the intent of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
3. This proposed development is appropriately located along an arterial street, 19th
Avenue, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations and approved by the
Planning and Development Department with specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required canal
frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th Avenue.
Page 1066
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area at a
depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a door or
window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent to a
canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of solid
masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the wall shall
not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
Page 1067
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and topped
with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted with
a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site via
a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian
pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at 19th Avenue or
South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This pathway shall be
constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or
colored concrete, or similar alternative material. The landscaped tract shall
contain minimum 2-inch caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on
center or equivalent groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the development
with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This pathway shall be
provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract and constructed of
decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers, stamped or colored
concrete, or similar alternative material.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas o r 10 percent of
Page 1068
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water use
plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas, including
retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. This
requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private yards on individual
lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage.
Page 1069
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the
east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT)
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work with the Site
Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the technical
appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern boundary
of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
Page 1070
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
November 5, 2021
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities. 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.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
Writer
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
November 5, 2021
Team Leader
Samantha Keating
Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped November 2, 2021
Conceptual Fencing Exhibit (Landscape Plan) date stamped October 14, 2021
Conceptual Building Renderings date stamped May 25, 2021 (9 pages)
Community Correspondence (39 pages)
Page 1071
R1-10
R1-10*
Z-47-17
R1-10
S-1
LATONA LN
R1-18 * S-2 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
Z-84-88
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
R1-18 *
Z-151-04
R1-18 *
Z-121-03
S-1
R1-10
S-1*
Z-SP-25-06
I
Miles
I-10
0.09 0.045 0 0.09 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-31-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Providence Homes
FROM:
S-1 ( 49.52 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/14/2021
Z-31-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
49.52 Acres QS 02-25 C-7 TO: R1-10 ( 49.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 49 N/A
R1-10 173 223
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 1072
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-31-21.mxd
R1-10
R1-10*
Z-47-17
R1-10
S-1
LATONA LN
R1-18 * S-2 *
ANX 49
Z-171-99
Z-84-88
SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE
R1-18 *
Z-151-04
R1-18 *
Z-121-03
S-1
R1-10
S-1*
Z-SP-25-06
I
Miles
I-10
0.09 0.045 0 0.09 BROADWAY RD
SOUTH MOUNTAIN VILLAGE SOUTHERN AVE
CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 8 BASELINE RD
DOBBINS RD
Z-31-21
APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Providence Homes
FROM:
S-1 ( 49.52 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
6/14/2021
Z-31-21 REVISION DATES:
GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
49.52 Acres QS 02-25 C-7 TO: R1-10 ( 49.52 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
S-1 49 N/A
R1-10 173 223
* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 1073
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2021\Z-31-21.mxd
Page 1074
Page 1075
Page 1076
Page 1077
Page 1078
Page 1079
Page 1080
Page 1081
Page 1082
Page 1083
Page 1084
From: larry Brown
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Friday, October 29, 2021 7:48:31 PM
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1085
From: Amber Harrison
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: 19th AVE and South Mountain
Date: Saturday, June 26, 2021 11:22:05 AM
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
Please do not allow corporate greed here. As with many residents in South Phoenix, weoved
here for the some what rural feel. Allowing this property to be used other than what it is
currently used for will remove that feel and lower our property values even further.
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android [go.onelink.me]
Page 1086
From: Beckett Aguirre
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning of 19th Ave & South Mtn Ave
Date: Thursday, August 5, 2021 7:53:52 AM
Mr. Bojorquez,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue.
I am a disabled Marine combat veteran & my wife & I just moved to the area. We are at
Silva Mountain Estates, the Elliot homes on 23rd Ave & South Mtn Ave. I moved to this
area to get away from the high density housing that is closer to the center of the valley. I
suffer from PTSD & other combat related ailments. Living in this rural area is good for my
mental health, which is why we moved here.
This proposed development will add more homes & traffic to the area, taking away from the
rural feel & climate.
Please do not allow the rezoning of this property. Thank you for you time.
Beckett Aguirre
USMC Veteran
623.271.5015
Page 1087
From: eliza williamson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning request in South Mountain area
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:57:06 AM
Dear Mr. Bojorquez-gaxiola,
In reference to case #GPA-SM-2-21-8. I mirror all the concerns voiced to you by my neighbor,
Patti Trites. This area is already becoming too congested, the infrastructure here is old and not
intended for such growth.
Please assist in this matter and prevent the rezoning of this area of 19th Ave and South Mountain
road.
Thank you for your time.
Eliza Williamson
2433 W. Hayduk Rd, 85041.
The true measure of any society can be found in
how it treats its most vulnerable members
Mahatma Gandhi [azquotes.com]
Page 1088
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1089
From: Eric Zimtbaum
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Protest cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 1:11:34 PM
Attachments: image003.png
Hi Enrique,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment and Z-31-21-8
(Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19 th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue.
Thank you,
Eric
Notice of Confidentiality: The information included and/or attached in this electronic mail
transmission may contain confidential or privileged information and is intended for the
addressee. Any unauthorized disclosure, reproduction, distribution or the taking of action in
reliance on the contents of the information is prohibited. If you believe that you have received
the message in error, please notify the sender by reply transmission and delete the message
without copying or disclosing it.
Page 1090
From: Erin Hegedus
To: AZleatherking@aol.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; jpoulsen@provhomes.com; ben@wtheymorris.com; Helen
Jewel Clark; mikejosic@gmail.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Dorothy Hallock; Cyd Manning
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:03:36 PM
Good afternoon, I am in receipt of your letter advising that you are requesting rezoning from 1-2
DU/AC to 2-3.5 DU/AC
I am writing to contest the rezoning. Among many other issues, the infrastructure, does not support
this change. Dobbins Road, 19th Avenue, South Mountain Avenue are two lane roads that are
already exhausted by traffic.
I am asking at this time is that when you schedule your “neighborhood meeting” as stated in your
letter dated 6/7/2021 that you schedule it at a time/location that is convenient for the neighbors
that this rezoning affects.
Perhaps after 6 pm at a location in the 85041 location
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1091
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
To: Erin Hegedus
Subject: RE: Rezoning request for 19th Avenue & Southern
For Z 31 21 8 and GPA SM 2 21 8, and Z 58 21 8 and GPA SM 3 21 8 case files.
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:10 PM
To: info@TechnicalSolutionsAZ.com; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Rezoning request for 19th Avenue & Southern
I reside at 8630 South 19th Avenue and am very concerned with the request to rezone this property.
Myself and our neighbors have aggressively contested this previously and continue to do so.
My concerns, to list a few are:
Infrastructure does not support an increase in density.
o South Mountain Avenue is at best a two lane road from 7th Street to 27th Avenue. There
are several areas of this road that are only one lane and the road is continually backed
up especially when school is in session.
o 19th Avenue is also a two lane road with open canals to the east and the west and
cannot support the current traffic and has been subject to several fatalities in the last 3
years.
o Additionally, Dobbins Road is a two lane road from 20th Street to 43rd Avenue and has
been heavily backed up for years.
There are many developments on Dobbins Road that are in process that are going to affect all of us that
reside in the area.
Furthermore, the housing that is proposed is not compliant with the homes that are in the area, which
are larger lots, higher value and conform to the current Rio Montana plan that was approved by the City
Council.
I am not only concerned with the lack of infrastructure but the fact that the higher density homes will
greatly devalue our homes that conform to the current zoning.
I ask that you review the plans and decrease the density to conform to the Rio Montana plan as we have
requested previously.
Sincerely,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1092
From: JAMES TORRES
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fw: Fwd: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 11:40:02 AM
Attachments: Enhanced Notification Form GPA-SM-2-21-8_dated 06-11-21.pdf
I’m a resident at Southern Hills, I hope you don’t rezone the property mentions below. All the
other Builders are dealing with the temporary increase in building materials. Please don’t open
a can of worms by rezoning this parcel. All the other Builders are making money building
houses in Phoenix.
Thank you,
James Torres
2337 W Corral Rd
Phoenix, AZ. 86041
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone [overview.mail.yahoo.com]
Begin forwarded message:
On Monday, June 14, 2021, 10:33 AM, Patti Trites
Hi Neighbors,
I am writing to you as a neighbor, not as the HOA.
I was recently made aware that the developer/owner of the land at 19th AVENUE
and SOUTH MOUNTAIN;
which is across the street from the Worm Farm and
just west of the new development The Commons at South Mountain
WANTS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM 0-2 DU/ACRE TO 3.5
DU/ACRE.
more homes - closer together - more congestion.
Please send your comments to the City Planner referencing this case GPA-SM-2-
21-8:
Enrique Bojorquez-Gaxiola at enrique.bojorquez-gaxiola@phoenix.gov
You can see my comments below.
The Developer is claiming increased costs of materials as to why he needs the
increased density.
The details of what they propose is attached. None of us got notice of this zoning
change either.
Please stay engaged and keep South Mountain beautiful.
pass this one.
Thank you.
Page 1093
Patti
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Patti Trites
Date: Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 9:54 AM
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels
Dear Enrique,
Hope you are fine.
I wanted to make you aware of my concerns on this case:
GPA-SM-2-21-8
A few items I wish to point out:
- I and my neighbors were never notified of this proposed zoning change.
I am the HOA President of Southern Hills and have been since 2016.
- There is no hydrology report done for this zoning change.
How does it impact the water in a 100 year storm event, especially downstream?
The City incorporated this requirement for rezoning cases...if you recall.
- I have a problem with their reasoning on the need to rezone.."due to
increased costs of lumber etc."
"The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac are the runaway costs of
homebuilding and development. The primary reason for this density of 3.5
du/ac
are the runaway costs of homebuilding and development. By example,
according
to the NAHB, just lumber alone is 300% greater in cost since April 2020
causing
new single-family homes to increase by nearly $36,000 on average. There
have
been significant increases in almost every other component of home
building,
plumbing, roofing, concrete, etc. Price increases have also hit development
very
hard also. Asphalt and piping have gone up dramatically over the past year.
The cost of materials, labor, developing lots, and homebuilding has
increased so
dramatically that homes built on 55’-wide lots will cost more than homes
built on
80‘-wide lots just one year ago. Thus the, 0-2 du/ac density currently
assigned to
this property would push home prices out of the range for all but a very
few, and
certainly beyond what the market can support in this area."
Page 1094
a. They will charge more for the homes; these are not affordable housing.
Builders are 'recouping these prices.
b. The development just next to this land, to the East, is by the same developer.
He kept that zoning at 0-2 du/acre for The Commons at South Mountain.
The builder had told me, at an initial call with Ben in 2020, that he was
selling the homes there quickly.
Those prices were 480K - over $600K.
He can make that money on the existing zoning.
I am certain that the new homeowners at The Commons at South
Mountain would be very upset with the zoning change if they were aware the
same builder/developer wants to put smaller homes in smaller lots next to
them.
c. They must follow Rio Montana Guidelines....or what is the point of having
guidelines
Finally - when I had a call with the Developer and Ben in 2020, I told them to
keep the same zoning; due the hydrology (i showed him the FLO-2D mapping for
the area available by Maricopa County; and to get buy in from the Rio Montana
Group across the street.
The worm farm and the landscape companies do not want the zoning change, he
told me then.
I asked why the zoning change - he told me then that it was due to needing more
homes to pay for the upgrade to 19th Avenue with sidewalks and sewers and the
upgrade to South Mountain the city will want.
- I don't see that reason on this document.
Do I have an opportunity to speak to this at the village?
Kindly please advise.
Thank you.
Patti
Page 1095
From: H. Jewel Clark
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Erin Hegedus; mijosic; zacharyrbrooks@hotmail.com; Zachary Brooks; Stephen Williams; Dorothy Hallock;
rhornback; azleatherking; ravi6161sharma@gmail.com; kimberly gomez; M.Rubio23@hotmail.com;
M.Rubio_23@hotmail.com
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 11:26:50 AM
Attachments: 4826_001.pdf
Dear Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola,
I am writing to protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan Amendment) and Z-
31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South
Mountain Avenue. My husband and I own property just on the other side of the proposed
development at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and according to my husband who checks the
mail, we did not receive notification of this zoning request. We were forwarded a copy by a
neighbor just last night, June 10. Surely we are within the notification area for this
development since it directly affects our transit to and from our home and our view from our
property?
The proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the city's Rio Montana development plan. As
stated clearly in the plan on page 17, "Residential densities should transition from north to
south in decreasing intensity." And as clearly laid out on the map on the following page, the
area south of South Mountain Ave, and 19th Ave. is intended for 0-2 Du/ac. The current
residents of the area have invested in and built on their properties to this standard and we have
reasonable expectations of the city to uphold the tenets of this plan.
In addition, as we demonstrated just over 2 years ago when opposing similar development on
the southwest side of South Mountain Ave. and 19th Ave., the infrastructure at the intersection
of 19th Ave. and South Mountain Ave. is wholly inadequate to accommodate torrential run-off
from South Mountain Park or the traffic congestion of an already overburdened intersection,
which includes school traffic. This is not something a developer can remediate.
The developments that have adhered to the density and other design aspects of the Rio
Montana plan have not been opposed in our area and we welcome new development when it
aligns with that plan. Again, since we did not receive official notification for this rezoning
request (assuming we are within the notification range) I would petition that there should be a
delay in any hearing to verify all surrounding property owners have actually received official
notification.
Sincerely,
Jewel Clark
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1096
From: Kim Nelson
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Protest cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Date: Monday, August 2, 2021 11:16:05 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique,
I would like to write in and protest concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8 (General Plan
Amendment and Z-31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast corner of 19 th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue.
Please consider!!
Thank you so much,
Kim
KIMBERLY ZIMTBAUM
Regional Portfolio Executive
C: 602-478-9826 | O: 480-483-4981 Ext 3026
kimberly.nelson@chrobinson.com
www.chrobinson.com [chrobinson.com]
20860 N. Tatum Blvd | Suite 350 | Phoenix, Az 85050
****************************************************************************
*********************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of
the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the named addressee you
should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Please notify the sender immediately by
e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of the sender of the e-mail. The sender of the e-
mail accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email. (IP)
****************************************************************************
*********************************************
Page 1097
From: larry Brown
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning application
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 3:16:52 PM
Greetings Enrique,
I am Larry Brown of 8706 S. 16th Dr. PHOENIX, AZ 85041. I am writing in regards to the
Rezoning application and Minor General Plan Amendment (Z-31-21-8 and GPA-Sm-2-21-8).
According to the letter I received today from Withey Morris LLC., Providence Homes wishes
to build on 55-foot-wide and 75-foot-wide lots with the 75-foot-wide lots being placed on the
West and North perimeter. As a current resident in The Commons at South Mountain and my
home being on the western perimeter of our neighborhood, I am concerned that we will have
up to 3 homes adjacent to ours with the 55-Foot-wide lots being placed on the Eatern
perimeter rather than possibly 2 homes if it were to place the 75-foot-wide lots here. Is it
possible they put the incorrect location of these wider lots in this letter?
Is it possible to require a geen space between the neighborhoods in order to better protect the
property value of the homes here in The Commons at South Mountain?
I appreciate your time and look forward to your response.
Respectfully,
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1098
From: Nicole
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Change in zoning in south mountain
Date: Thursday, June 17, 2021 3:06:11 PM
Hello I have made aware of developers changing the zoning in south mountain. South mountain is a beautiful area
with low density with some farms and people riding horses in the area. I understand things change as I have seen the
change the 12 years I have lived in the area. It would be nice if the slightly rural feel and and not densely populated
areas closer to downtown. Please take this into consideration with case: GPA-SM-2-21-8.
Thank you
Nicole Stovall
Sent from my iPhone
Page 1099
From: Stan Flowers
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Thursday, June 24, 2021 1:49:11 PM
Dear Enrique,
I am writing to express my opposition to the GPA proposed for the Kimura Gardens housing
project at 19th Avenue and South Mountain Road to change the current Plan's residential
density from 0-2 du/acre to 2-3.48 du/acre. I've been a resident of the immediate area for 9
years and a south Phoenix/Laveen resident for 12 years.
The primary reason noted in the request is that costs of homebuilding and development have
increased. In other words, the developers want to decrease the size of lots in order to
squeeze more houses into this 49 acre plot of land in order to sell more houses. It's merely a
profit-driven decision and not at all related to community development or wealth and quality
of life.
The area south of South Mountain/19th Avenue is already becoming congested with traffic.
Housing developments are either in the process or planned in several areas along Dobbins
Road which is the next major east-west transportation artery south of this area:
Silva Mountain - 67 lots already built and directly east of Kimura Gardens on South
Mountain Road
Dobbins Heights - 176 homes currently being built at 15th Avenue/Dobbins
Winde Farms - 46 lots planned for the northeast corner of 27th Avenue/Dobbins
Dobbins Manor - excavation underway on the southwest corner of 27th
Avenue/Dobbins; I don't have information on the number of lots but the plat of land is
probably 35-40 acres
19th Avenue via Dobbins Road has already become a viable shortcut for access to downtown
Phoenix/I-17, and areas east of Central Avenue, due to serious and constant congestion on
Baseline Road from 19th Avenue to 16th Street.
In regards to increasing the density unit per acre to support retail and commercial
development at 19th Avenue and Baseline Road, that's a bit of a stretch. There's a lack of, and
has always been a lack of, desirable amenities at that intersection other than fast food and of
course the Lowe's store and CVS, despite constant homebuilding in this area. That's a
problem looking for a solution from the Community and Economic Development Department
and developers. So many of our local friends and neighbors travel out of the area to
patronize.
As a south Phoenix resident whose 2-year old home was nearly destroyed by the 25 and 100-
Page 1100
year floods in August and September 2014, I am always concerned about the impacts of water
flow from the mountains. 19th Avenue is a natural waterway from South Mountain down to
Baseline. Intersections consistently flood between these two points. Has the developer been
able to determine how this natural water flow will impact this development? The residents in
our community are diligent in keeping our friends and neighbors aware of the need to inquire
about water flow in these areas being developed for more homes.
In summary, it's obvious that the rural feel of South Mountain area and nearby Laveen are
slowly disappearing. Housing developments are going to continue. However, allowing
developers to amend General Plan decisions just to increase their profit margin, should not be
a determinant for amendments. Community improvement and quality of life enhancements
need to play a role.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Stan Flowers
2425 W. Hayduk Rd.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Southern Hills Community
Page 1101
From: T Ryan
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: #Z-31-21-8 South Mountain and 19th Avenue
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 4:19:02 PM
I’m writing to urge the Planning and Zoning Committee to deny the application to upzone the
property at 19th Avenue and South Mountain. The original plan for the area south of Baseline was to
maintain the agricultural/rural feel of the area. The roads and streets in this area cannot handle
more people. 19th Avenue is 2 lanes (not two lanes each way, 2 lanes period). There is no shoulder
on the road nor any turn lanes.
The two east/west roads for leaving the neighborhood are Baseline and Dobbins. Dobbins is another
2 lane road and Baseline is bumper to bumper with numerous car accidents daily. Please pull the
police reports and you will see I am not exaggerating this. The new school at Baseline and 15 th
Avenue has also created a large traffic issue both before and after school. A new large apartment
complex is under construction at 19th Avenue and Southern. This development will add to the traffic
on Baseline as well since I’m sure many of their children will attend the school.
In short, the infrastructure from Baseline to the south does not lend itself to higher density building.
Please contact me if you have further questions or would like me to testify before a hearing.
Regards,
Tammy Ryan
1822 W Moody Trail
Phoenix, AZ 85041
(602) 430-5965
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1102
From: zach@zbrooks.com
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; jpoulsen@provhomes.com; ben@wtheymorris.com; Erin Hegedus
Subject: Re: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 11, 2021 11:27:42 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Enrigue -
The Arizona Worm Farm, the property I own directly across from this proposed development
is also opposed to this development as presented.
We will be sending you a formal response in the near future, but would appreciate an
opportunity to meet with you (even virtually) while the project is still in review - before it gets
formally presented to the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
I would like to share my concerns with you and explain ways the development could be more
consistent with the neighborhood and the general plan for the area. That way, perhaps you can
help us get it to a desirable project before it gets a favorable recommendation from the
planning department.
Can we meet?
Zach Brooks
602-418-6704
As always, leave us a comment with any questions regarding your worm farm, composting or
anything sustainable farming related! Our farm hours of operation are listed below with links
to our website and Facebook page where you can find out about our farm and sign up for
vermicomposting classes held once a month at the farm!
______________________
FB: Arizona Worm Farm https://www.facebook.com/arizonawormfarm/ [facebook.com]
Website: http://www.arizonawormfarm.com/ [arizonawormfarm.com]
_______________________
Hours of Operation/Visitation
Monday - Friday 8 am - 4 pm
Saturday 8 am - 1 pm
Closed Sundays
On Friday, June 11, 2021, 10:58:15 AM MST, Erin Hegedus
Thank you for your response, I am sure you will be receiving many more emails contesting the rezoning
as we have previously presented our case when the southwest corner was requested for rezoning to
higher density housing.
Page 1103
Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2021 10:29:04 AM
To: Erin Hegedus
ben@wtheymorris.com
mikejosic@gmail.com
Hallock
Subject: RE: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Good morning Erin,
How are you? This is Enrique Bojorquez, South Mountain Village Planner with the city of
Phoenix. Thank you for your statement in regards to concurrent cases GPA-SM-2-21-8
(General Plan Amendment) and Z-31-21-8 (Rezoning) for the property at the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. I will add your statement to the case
file for the review of our team and the public bodies that will hear these two cases in the
next few months.
At the moment, rezoning cases are required by the city to host an online virtual meeting,
teleconference or another alternative meeting format where members of the public can
safely engage with the applicant on the project (due to the Emergency Declaration issued
by City Council in 2020 arising from COVID-19 concerns). Over the past year, most
applicants have elected to host an online virtual meeting to meet this requirement. There
will also be a website created by the applicant on these cases where project documents will
be displayed for public review.
If you have any questions about the city process, public hearings, other aspects of these
cases involving the city, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner II – Village Planner
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
Page 1104
you.***
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2021 6:04 PM
To: AZleatherking@aol.com; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Clark
Hallock
Subject: Rezoning Application #GPA-SM-2-21-8
Good afternoon, I am in receipt of your letter advising that you are requesting rezoning from
1-2 DU/AC to 2-3.5 DU/AC
I am writing to contest the rezoning. Among many other issues, the infrastructure, does not
support this change. Dobbins Road, 19th Avenue, South Mountain Avenue are two lane
roads that are already exhausted by traffic.
I am asking at this time is that when you schedule your “neighborhood meeting” as stated in
your letter dated 6/7/2021 that you schedule it at a time/location that is convenient for the
neighbors that this rezoning affects.
Perhaps after 6 pm at a location in the 85041 location
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows 10
Page 1105
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: CORRECTION Rezoning Feedback
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 8:00:11 PM
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola,
Please disregard my e-mail sent earlier today regarding Application #Z-31-21-8, and GPA-SM-
2-21-8
I am a resident in South Phoenix and DO NOT support approval of the application. I encourage
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee to limit rezoning residential development to
2-3 homes per acre maximum.
Dean Chiarelli, Master of Arts, Registered Dietitian, Registered Environmental Health Specialist
Electronic Signature Dean Chiarelli
Page 1106
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; Marcia Busching; Greg Brownell; edward@yourgreatestself.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Monday, June 14, 2021 9:55:06 AM
Dear Enrique,
Hope you are fine.
I wanted to make you aware of my concerns on this case:
GPA-SM-2-21-8
A few items I wish to point out:
- I and my neighbors were never notified of this proposed zoning change.
I am the HOA President of Southern Hills and have been since 2016.
- There is no hydrology report done for this zoning change.
How does it impact the water in a 100 year storm event, especially downstream?
The City incorporated this requirement for rezoning cases...if you recall.
- I have a problem with their reasoning on the need to rezone.."due to increased costs of
lumber etc."
"The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac are the runaway costs of
homebuilding and development. The primary reason for this density of 3.5 du/ac
are the runaway costs of homebuilding and development. By example, according
to the NAHB, just lumber alone is 300% greater in cost since April 2020 causing
new single-family homes to increase by nearly $36,000 on average. There have
been significant increases in almost every other component of home building,
plumbing, roofing, concrete, etc. Price increases have also hit development very
hard also. Asphalt and piping have gone up dramatically over the past year.
The cost of materials, labor, developing lots, and homebuilding has increased so
dramatically that homes built on 55’-wide lots will cost more than homes built on
80‘-wide lots just one year ago. Thus the, 0-2 du/ac density currently assigned to
this property would push home prices out of the range for all but a very few, and
certainly beyond what the market can support in this area."
a. They will charge more for the homes; these are not affordable housing. Builders are
'recouping these prices.
b. The development just next to this land, to the East, is by the same developer.
He kept that zoning at 0-2 du/acre for The Commons at South Mountain.
The builder had told me, at an initial call with Ben in 2020, that he was selling the
homes there quickly.
Those prices were 480K - over $600K.
He can make that money on the existing zoning.
I am certain that the new homeowners at The Commons at South Mountain would be
very upset with the zoning change if they were aware the same builder/developer wants
to put smaller homes in smaller lots next to them.
c. They must follow Rio Montana Guidelines....or what is the point of having guidelines
Finally - when I had a call with the Developer and Ben in 2020, I told them to keep the same
zoning; due the hydrology (i showed him the FLO-2D mapping for the area available by
Maricopa County; and to get buy in from the Rio Montana Group across the street.
The worm farm and the landscape companies do not want the zoning change, he told me then.
I asked why the zoning change - he told me then that it was due to needing more homes to
pay for the upgrade to 19th Avenue with sidewalks and sewers and the upgrade to South
Mountain the city will want.
- I don't see that reason on this document.
Page 1107
Do I have an opportunity to speak to this at the village?
Kindly please advise.
Thank you.
Patti
--
Hope you have a great day. Thank you.
Patti Trites
Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1108
From: Patti Trites
To: Adam Baugh; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: John S. Poulsen (jpoulsen@provhomes.com); Tamala Daniels; Marcia Busching
Subject: Re: FW: Opposition Letter - Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Friday, June 25, 2021 7:07:10 AM
Attachments: image004.png
Dear Adam,
Hello. Thank you for your email.
I remain open to meey with you and your client, John.
I would request that you invite two others critical to this project: someone from the new
development John built, The Commons at Providence, and someone from the Rio Montana
subdivision.
These immediate neighbors' feedback along with other neighbor's is critical as you move
forward.
Let me know when you have them available and I will gladly meet.
Always working to help out.
By the way, I never received the first notice. I received the second notice yesterday of the
zoom meeting July 7th, but it came to me due to my complaint not as a homeowner. My
neighbors have not been notified by your client.
Enrique- please include in correspondence to the Village on this project..
Thank you.
Patti
On Fri, Jun 25, 2021, 2:17 AM Adam Baugh
Hi Patti,
I hope you’re doing well. I miss seeing you on the village. You were always very kind to
me.
I just wanted to follow up with you about a project we discussed back in February. I hope
you might recall the zoom call we did with you and my client John Poulsen. He is a sweet
man, very warm and grandfatherly. You might recall we mentioned how he developed The
Commons on South Mountain Avenue east of 19th Avenue, and was soon going to develop
the land he owns at the southeast corner of that intersection. When we shared our plans with
you in February you were complementary to the project and warned us to pay close attention
to the drainage study, which we did thankfully based on your advice.
Page 1109
Enrique forwarded me your letter of opposition which surprised me and is a different tone.
But I also know I need to do the necessary work to address concerns. Would you be open to
meeting with John and I soon?
G. Adam Baugh, Esq.
Withey Morris PLC
2525 E Arizona Biltmore Circle #A-212
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Ph: (602) 230-0600
Fax: (602) 212-1787
[linkedin.com]
WM_Logo_1615U_K
[witheymorris.com]
Please be advised that this e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential attorney-client communication
or may otherwise be privileged or confidential and are intended solely for the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy or retransmit this communication, but
destroy it immediately. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly
prohibited.
Page 1110
Page 1111
Page 1112
Page 1113
Page 1114
Page 1115
Page 1116
Page 1117
Page 1118
Page 1119
Page 1120
Page 1121
Page 1122
From: Seidy Lasker
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning
Date: Tuesday, June 29, 2021 3:57:10 PM
Hi, I would just like to say I 100% support all rezoning efforts in South Phoenix including
the one on 19th ave & South Mountain. I think 3+ lots per acre is great and more higher
density housing to increase affordability including condos.
I believe there needs to be a bigger push towards rezoning to create more affordable living
in Buckeye, Goodyear, Avondale.
I don’t believe in single family rentals though. I think if houses are to be built, they should
be built for sale and not an entire community for rent unless its an apartment complex.
Thanks
--
Seidy Lasker | Personal: 602-710-7835
Page 1123
Attachment C
ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Dates: December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this rezoning request on
November 9, 2021 and voted (13-0) to continue the case to the December 14, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting, in agreement with the applicant.
Subsequently, the case was continued to the January 6, 2022 Planning Commission
hearing.
As a result of the discussion at the November 9, 2021 Village Planning Committee
meeting, the applicant has provided an updated site plan and a landscape plan,
attached to this report, that depicts a decrease in the number of lots from 160 to 156 on
the subject site. Furthermore, the applicant has requested to limit all homes in this
development to a maximum height of one story and 22 feet.
Other changes to the site and landscape plans include the off-setting of lots, lot width
adjustments for 55-foot and 60-foot wide lots, depiction of amenity areas and pedestrian
pathways. A minor reduction to the open space percentage from 17 percent to 16
percent resulted from these changes. Due to these changes, staff recommends
modifying the following stipulations:
Page 1124
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
• Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance with the site plan and update
to the open space percentage;
• Stipulation No. 3 regarding limitations to single-story homes;
• Stipulation No. 9 regarding a requirement to provide pedestrian access gates to
the Western Canal from adjacent public streets;
• Stipulation No. 11. regarding the development of open space areas in general
conformance to the landscape plan;
• Stipulations No. 12 and 13 regarding a clarification on the shade and live
coverage standards;
• Stipulation No. 21 regarding updates to disclosure documents on agricultural
uses;
• New Stipulation No. 22 regarding disclosure of a shooting range at the Phoenix
Police Academy approximately 0.8 miles southeast of the site;
• Stipulation Nos. 23 through 26 have been renumbered;
• New Stipulation No. 27 to require a bus stop pad be provided along 19th
Avenue as requested by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee.
Leading up to and following the December 14, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting, staff received additional correspondence from the public regarding
this case. This additional correspondence is also attached.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations, reflecting updates to the site
plan, provided below:
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
Page 1125
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
Page 1126
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ALONG BOTH 19TH
AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN
Page 1127
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY THE STIPULATIONS AND
INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 1128
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
Page 1129
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Page 1130
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
December 9, 2021
Exhibits
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped November 24, 2021 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped November 24, 2021
Correspondence from the public (14 pages)
Page 1131
Page 1132
Page 1133
Page 1134
Racelle Escolar
From: Gina Johnson
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 3:30 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Southmountainand19th@gmail.com
Subject: 12/2/21 comment for Item 4. GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello,
I am a resident of Magdalena Estates, adjacent to the general plan amendment
consideration for Kimura Gardens at 19th Ave and South Mountain Ave, Item 4:
GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Item 3: Companion Case Z-31-21-8) . I would like to appeal to
the committee to ensure the general plan submitted aligns to the City plan of Rio
Montana recommendations and continue this request by sending back to the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee for further review, community
discussion, and planning.
Rio Montana plan states the closer to South Mountain the lesser the density. I
believe this property should be zoned as R1-18 to support 2.34 (with bonus)
units/acre rather than the proposed R1-10 that would put 3.25 units/acre. This is
too dense for this rural area. I understand the growth of Phoenix, but we must
maintain quality of rural life in one of the few places in Phoenix it's still found
while maintaining mountain view property values. The developer has much to do
still to support the Rio Montana plan and enhance the South Mountain area, not
continue to reduce it.
Additionally, the staff for the South Mountain Village (SMV) Planning Committee
handled this process poorly by trying to rush through the GPA and the rezoning
at the same time with insufficient time for review by the SMV Planning Committee
and the Public. Not allowing the neighborhood to provide input on the GPA.
Thankfully, the committee recognized this poor management and continued the
zoning process.
It is not often I would submit my comment but I care for this community, the
resale values. and continued uplifting and improvement of South Phoenix areas.
Please consider not approving this General Amendment Plan and send it back to
the South Mountain Village Planning Committee. As of 11/29/21 the developer
didn't have an amended plan to share with the community or to present to you. I
think they need more time to complete their plan and I ask that you, at minimum,
continue this request for the developer to submit an adjusted plan.
Thank you,
Gina Johnson
Magdalena Estates
1816 W. Magdalena Lane Phoenix, AZ 85041
bakergmb@gmail.com
Page11135
Racelle Escolar
From: Robin Shared
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 12:17 PM
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Hello,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed Kimura Gardens development at the intersection of
South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue. Some of these concerns are specific to this development and its
developer (Providence Homes), while others, especially traffic and flood management, relate to both Kimura
Gardens and to the area as a whole including other developments in planning stages.
For the reasons below, I'm requesting more time for the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns about this development and the way the approvals process
has functioned thus far.
Providence Homes proposes to build a development on about 49 acres with at least 160 units at the SE corner
of 19th Ave and South Mountain Lane.
The busiest corner of South Mountain lane is the northeast corner where Magdalena Estates development has
26 houses. Immediately east of the proposed location for Kimura Gardens is another Providence Homes
development, The Commons, which has 35-40 homes. The northwest corner has 3 houses and the southwest
corner is open land.
There is no way that 160 units in the middle of this community will not have a serious impact that goes far
beyond obliterating the very real neighborhood character that Providence Homes claims to respect.
South Mountain Lane is a very busy stretch of multipurpose road that includes traffic from pedestrians,
bicycles and equestrians in addition to a wide variety of vehicle traffic from Mini Coopers to large scale farm
equipment.
Improvements are needed to make this area safe for the wide variety of foot, bike, horse and vehicle traffic that
are already exists. Simply widening the road will not be sufficient, as functional wide paths are needed to safely
separate the volume of diverse traffic the area already gets.
Adding at least 160 vehicles to this area will be an immediate and serious unsafe impact on everyone who
uses this street.
Flooding off of South Mountain is an ongoing issue in the area as a whole and especially at the intersection of
19th Ave and South Mountain Lane. This intersection is not safe to drive through in any amount of rain, which
at times will flood not only the intersection but much of 19th Ave north of the intersection.
Replacing what is currently a highly absorbant cotton field on the southeast with houses, streets and driveways
will significantly impact water movement in this area which must be considered and safely managed to protect
drivers on 19th Ave as well as the existing properties that surround the area.
This is especially a concern given that the developer representative claimed in the November 9 meeting that
he doesn't have up to date flood maps because he hasn't been "given them." (This despite multiple attempts to
rush the process).
We absolutely do not want a development going in near us that threatens our safety in multiple ways, as
Kimura Gardens currently does by proposing to more than double the drivers at this intersection without
Page11136
making plans for traffic or flooding, let alone showing any awareness or respect for the community's semi-rural
zoning and lifestyles.
The developer has also told multiple people in the community that Providence Homes will show their respect
for the community by committing to single story buildings, to following the Rio Montana plans and to minimal
zoning increases - yet in meetings, he proposes increasing units per lot to 3.5 (instead of 2) and showed
multistory buildings with garage prominent designs. The developer's representative also responded with
noticeable aggravation to questions about the multiple significant deviations from he Rio Montana plans they
claim to be following and to questions about the discrepancies between the several different lot layouts shown
and the inconsistent representation of green areas which make evaluating the plans for lot size, unit size and
responsible water management impossible.
In addition to my concerns about Kimura Gardens and about large scale development in the South Mountain
Village area, I have serious concerns about the procedures and transparency of the Nov 9 zoning meeting.
In this meeting, the developer took intellectual property from community members and incorporated it into his
presentation with the aid of the staff who set up the meeting and shared her materials without her knowledge
or consent, while in turn the developer's presentation materials were not made available to other
commenters by the staff.
This is highly concerning - as are the multiple procedural irregularities noted by board members throughout the
meeting and especially during this presentation. Procedural concerns included (but were not limited to) the
developer's presentation being submitted late, the board members not having a chance to review the material,
the developer rushing approval process steps and trying to piggyback additional approvals into the process
and other breaks with procedure for the process and for the meeting itself.
The impression given to the audience was that participation in the approval process is not equal or transparent
and that many of the board members are willing to skip following procedure and not listen to the board
members who are concerned about following the rules laid out for equity and transparency.
Best,
Rebekah
Page21137
From: Erin Hegedus
To: PDD Planning Commission; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano; Council District 8 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Enrique A
Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:20:38 PM
I am writing to address my concerns with the referenced plan as it does not conform to the Rio
Montana Plan that was purposely thought out to maintain the integrity of this unique are in Phoenix.
There are few areas of this density and agriculture presence in the valley and once developed will
never return.
Among my concerns are the following:
Alleys for rear entry garages (indicated in the Rio Montana Plan for R1-10 and lower
density)
Side entry garages if not all areas can have alleys
Any garages left that are font-facing have a minimum 10' setback to the front of the
house. All of the facade examples have front facing garages that are or are nearly
50% of the front of the house. This is a no-no.
Actual porches on all home designs. This is in the stipulations by the city planning
staff but not reflected in the housing design examples. That said, the staff does not
recommend adherence to those designs.
Staggered lot sizes side by side. The RM Plan specifically calls for lot widths to vary
in an alternating pattern, for example: 55ft, 65ft, 55ft, 65ft, etc. As laid out, the current
site design groups the same sized lots together.
Commitment to drought tolerant/native trees on properties and not just in the open
spaces to mitigate heat island effect.
Shaded sidewalks within the development and not just on the perimeter landscaping
Preserve irrigation (this was a subject requested/asked about by one of the
committee members)
LEED building practices
Additionally, and most importantly to me, the infrastructure does not support the current
traffic, let alone the additional traffic that the request for increased density will bring to the
area.
I ask for you to look at this request with the eyes that believe in maintaining unique
neighborhoods in Phoenix.
Thank you.
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85041
Page 1138
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: bassinby@msn.com; erintkhegedos@hotmail.com
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 (Companion Case Z-31-21-8):
Date: Sunday, November 7, 2021 4:26:47 PM
I am writing to request to speak to the referenced rezoning request by Providence Homes and
Newcastle Development.
I want to state in advance that although I would rather maintain the last of the agriculture that is left
in Phoenix, I know that ultimately the land will be developed.
I ask for consideration of the following:
An explanation of how the already exhausted infrastructure of South Mountain
Avenue, Dobbins Road and 19th Avenue would tolerate the approximately 300 + more
vehicles this development will create.
Currently, Dobbins Road, South Mountain Avenue and 19th Avenue are only two lane
roads surrounded by irrigation canals … In some areas of South Mountain Avenue, this
road reduces to one lane.
I am aware that the developer will present to the Council that there is a shortage of housing,,
however, there are hundreds of developments underway in this area code which would offset that
concern.
Additionally, I ask to respect the Rio Montana Plan that was strategically planned to maintain
the integrity of this neighborhood.
Higher density housing and lower cost housing are a conflict to that plan and would negatively
affect this neighborhood and any additional interest in retailers that might consider this area.
Respectfully,
Erin Hegedus, CMRP
8630 South 19th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1139
From: H. Jewel Clark
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Comments for Item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8 - City of Phoenix Planning Commission meeting- Dec. 2, 2021
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:44:03 PM
Agenda item #4, Case GPA-SM-2-21-8
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to oppose the approval, at this meeting, of case GPA-SM-2-21-8, which changes
the zoning of 49.5 acres on the southeast corner of 19 th Ave. and West South Mountain Ave.
from S-1 to R1-10 and request that it be returned to the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee for further discussion in conjunction with its companion case Z-31-21-8.
My husband and I have our home at 2020 W. South Mountain Ave., and we have owned that
property since Nov. 2009. We purchased in the area for the larger lots, custom homes, and
equestrian/rural character of the South Mountain area. While we are not opposed to
development, we and our neighbors strongly believe that the design and planning guidelines of
the 2015 Phoenix General Plan and the Rio Montana Plan be adhered to- just as we have
adhered to them- when any new development is proposed. That plan, and the future certainty
that it provided, factored highly in our decision to buy our property here.
Mr. John Poulsen of Providence Homes has requested a zoning density of R1-10 that is flatly
incompatible with the neighborhood character of the surrounding area and in an area with a
known history of street flooding and undeveloped infrastructure. That said, Mr. Poulsen does
seem to be working in good faith with the neighbors to try and find compromise, and we
welcome that. However, there is much that is still up in the air. Mr. Poulsen and Ben Tate
from Withey Morris met for the first time since the SMVPC meeting just this Monday, Nov.
28, with the neighbors to hear our concerns and our ideas. We felt the conversation was
productive, but they have not had time to draft any changes to the site plan to present or have
additional dialog with the neighbors as of this letter.
The companion case Z-31-21-8 was not approved by the South Mountain Village Planning
Committee because there was a lack of adherence to the Rio Montana Plan, many neighbors
were opposed- citing very real concerns about neighborhood character, home values, and
inadequate infrastructure for traffic and flooding- and that the city planning staff did not
submit their documents until the Friday before the meeting, providing inadequate time for the
public and the committee to thoughtfully review the proposal.
I respectfully request that GPA-SM-2-21-8 remain with its companion case Z-31-21-8 at the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee in the approval process and only move forward
once Mr. Poulsen and the neighbors have had more time to work together and resolve the
development concerns therein.
Jewel Clark
2020 West South Mountain Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
480.664.9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1140
--
H. Jewel Clark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page 1141
From: Miguel Rubio
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens opposition lette
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 2:18:52 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello Enrique once again..
We are opposed to this project ,because it will affect us pretty bad, as we have a hard time getting
out of our property on 8020 s 20th ave , every time we get on the intersection of latona and 19th
ave , it takes forever for us to have access and having several hundred of vehicles is going to make it
worse.
That reason the we bough our property is because we like the rural life, and having all that people
living here next to us is going to affect me and my family.
The value on our property is going to decrease and is not what I want for me and my family.
We figth it over this with mister ward on the opposite corner, and this is going to be the same we
are a really good community , we stay together and this is what we want for our kids and grandkids.
This is one of the last places the still have the opportunity to have this privacy and this people is
trying to take it from us.
We are not opposed of them building we just wanted to preserve large lots and low density.
I am pretty sure that you guys would do the same for your family.
Thank you very much and have a great day.
MIGUEL RUBIO
RB CONTRACTING LLC
8020 S 2OTH AVE
PHX,AZ 85041
(602) 366 9334
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 8:15 AM
To: Miguel Rubio
Subject: RE: Kimura gardens
Good morning Miguel,
How are you? You may email me your opposition letter in regards to this project (Case Nos. GPA-SM-
Page 1142
2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8).
Let me know if questions arise.
Thank you!
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
***I am currently working remotely on a rotational schedule, but will be checking voicemails multiple times
per day. Please feel free to leave me a voice message or email me for a more timely response. Thank
you.***
From: Miguel Rubio
Sent: Monday, November 8, 2021 9:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura gardens
Hello Enrique, this is MIGUEL RUBIO.
I would like to know where can I send my opposition letter to..?
Rb contracting llc
8020 s 20th Ave
Phoenix az, 85041
602 366 9334
Page 1143
Racelle Escolar
From: JoAnne Jensen
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Hello and thank you for taking my comments.
We live in Magdalena Estates, a group of homes immediately north of the planned Kimura Gardens development.
First – thanks to the Poulson group for engaging in ongoing conversations with us and our neighbors to best work out
how we all can be comfortable with inevitable change. They have been very attentive and have been patiently willing to
modify their plans.
In fact, a sizable group of neighbors met with Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate on the afternoon of Monday (11/29) at the
planned Kimura Gardens site to review our collective wants and needs. And, as of this writing, a telephonic conference
call is being scheduled for later this week.
Which brings me to my second, and main, point. The review process for these two requests (which go hand in hand) is
so compressed that it is ahead of the ongoing evolution of the plan. In other words, there has been no time to formalize
the modifications. This is not the fault of the Planning Commission or of any governmental organization, it is just a
timing issue. And timing issues can easily be remedied by taking a time out, which by no means is the same as denying a
request.
This is my request – can we please return to the Village Planning level with both requests and take a breath before any
further formal action is taken? We need this to give us a chance to help prepare the best possible development plan
which will be acceptable to the largest number of people and to present a concrete proposal rather than an ever
changing and amorphous concept. Procedurally and administratively, it makes most sense is these two requests are
kept in synch. Just as it makes the most sense for all the details to be in place before the concept it approved.
There is no one with whom I have spoken who opposes development, if the density and home sizes / construction are
consonant with The Commons and Magdalena Estates. We know growth and change are coming and, when properly
done, will bring benefits for everyone. The willingness of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Tate to sit and discuss and listen is
impressive and I am confident that by encouraging the design guidelines from the Rio Montana Plan for this area, the
Poulson group will find support. We purchased our home because of the demographics, the lot sizes, the quality of
construction, and the quiet rural nature of Magdalena Estates. Our goal is to continue that quality of life.
Thank you for considering my remarks. Based on comments from other neighbors, I can safely say that this represents
the perspectives of the majority of our community.
Page11144
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Racelle Escolar; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia
Maximiliano
Subject: community comments re development case numbers: Z-31-21 and GPA-SM-2-21
Date: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 5:13:51 PM
I'm commenting as a community resident near where Kimura Gardens will be built, to ask that
the approval process be slowed.
There are several concerns about this development that have yet to be answered, including
safety issues for current residents and future residents. The infrastructure in this area is simply
not prepared for 160 units and the estimated 300+ more drivers that would accompany them.
The intersection at South Mountain Lane and 19th Avenue is already overwhelmed with just
two neighborhoods under 40 units each, as is South Mountain Lane, which is barely a lane and
a half.
Our community supports development that follows zoning R1-18 and layouts like that in
the Rio Montana Plan.
I believe more time would allow the community, the city and the developer to work
together to find solutions to the concerns.
Sincerely,
Steven Higginbotham
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1145
From: Dan Martin
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Fwd: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 9:12:50 PM
Enrique,
I would like to concur with my neighbor that a request for a space between the neighborhoods
would be welcomed. One of the main reasons that I purchased a home in The Commons
community was that the homes did not face another home to their rear. This is why I paid
$100K more than my previous home situated in Laveen. Would it be possible to change the
road frontage setback to the West on 19th Avenue from 150 feet to 140 feet in order to provide
a 10 foot space with a walking path between the two neighborhoods? This essentially would
not change the design of the Kumura Gardens but shift it 10 feet to the West.
Sincerely,
Dan Martin
8612 S 16th Dr.
Phoenix, AZ 85041
513-305-0258
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: larry Brown
Date: Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:48 PM
Subject: Application to amend zoning ordinance #Z-31-21
To:
Greetings sir,
I am writing again to request a concern about this application for amendment. If the
amendment is ratified, I’m concerned that it will negatively impact the quality of life for the
residents on the Western perimeter of The Commons at South Mountain neighborhood which
is adjacent to this 49.5 acres parcel. By authorizing 2-3.5 du/ac this will result in more than
one home being built directly behind each of the homes on this property boundary.
We respectfully request that the zoning require a green space between the 2 neighborhoods
since the number of dwellings per acre would result in multiple homes directly behind each of
our homes on the western perimeter of our community.
We believe a green space between our neighborhood and the new construction will result in a
mutual benefit for all parties involved.
Respectfully,
Larry and Hope Brown
8796 S. 16th Drive
Phoenix, Arizona 85041
(520)313-6339
topbrown10@gmail.com
--
Respectfully,
Page 1146
Larry A. Brown
(520) 313-6339
Page 1147
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Rezoning Application (Z-31-21) and Minor General Plan Amendment (GPA-SM-2-21), Kimura Gardens
Development
Date: Tuesday, November 9, 2021 11:31:27 AM
Hello and good morning -
Thank you for accepting my comments.
The Providence group has been very active in its outreach to neighbors during the planning to
develop the property immediately south of Magdalena Estates, where we live - this is greatly
appreciated. And, to be fair, they have listened and been responsive to the majority of concerns.
Although I am a member of Magdalena Estate's HOA Board, I have no authority to speak on behalf of
the community or our Board, only for our lot 13.
We have several points to make:
Everyone knows that there will be development. We are lucky to have enjoyed our relative isolation
for as long as we have. So, the goal is to maintain the property values and quality of life for those
who already live here.
The configuration of Kimura Gardens will set an important precedent for the future of this area. The
originally presented number of homes was 178 and has been reduced to 150. Still, that is very
dense, and the effect upon traffic, light, and noise is going to be significant. Frankly, I would prefer
that the density be the same as Magdalena Estates and The Commons to assure continuity within
this area.
A discussion point during the planning process has been whether the homes will be one or two
stories. I understand the economic ramifications of all single story construction. But the quality of
life consequences are also important - more stories means more people, more cars, more light,
more noise - all of which mitigate against maintaining the current quiet that we who already live
here enjoy.
No one walks away completely satisfied. But, please consider that if all the homes in Kimura
Gardens were one story, this would set a good precedent for the future of this area, it would
equalize the property values among the three developments (The Commons, Magdalena Estates,
and Kimura Gardens), it would create a relatively more tranquil and safe environment.
In sum - if a condition of zoning approval is that all homes are single story, we in lot 13 endorse the
other aspects of the development plan as we understand them.
Thank you.
JoAnne Jensen (480-213-6499)
Page 1148
Steven D. Smith
8303 S. 17th Drive
Phoenix AZ 85041
Page 1149
Attachment D
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-31-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting December 14, 2021
November 9, 2021 (Continued)
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation in Addendum A
with a modification to Stipulation No. 9.
VPC Vote 7-3-1 Motion passed; Members Aldama, Brownell,
Busching, Shepard, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor;
Mr. Brooks, Coleman and Holmerud in dissent. Ms. Hare
abstained.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Four members
registered in opposition, one neutral, and two in support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation on
rezoning case Z-31-21-8. This case was continued from the November 9, 2021
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting, while the General Plan
Amendment case was heard by Planning Commission earlier this month. He
discussed the existing zoning in the area and requested zoning for the site. The
previous and current conceptual site plans were discussed, and an overview of
Addendum A staff report was provided. He concluded the presentation by
discussing the stipulation changes included in Addendum A of the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
provided an overview of the request. He discussed the location of the site,
changes made to the conceptual site plan including a decrease in lots and minor
adjustments to the layout. Previous versions of the site plan were compared to
the current version proposed, and he requested approval of the case given these
changes and community engagement.
Page 1150
Kay Shepard asked for clarification on landscape maintenance responsibilities.
Mr. Baugh responded that the future homeowner’s association (HOA) would be
responsible for the landscape maintenance.
Ms. Shepard discussed The Pines at South Mountain community not
maintaining their landscaping within private open space tracts. Mr. Baugh
responded that the HOA would be maintaining the landscaping and added that
there is a stipulation that addressed low-water use plants. He discussed why
flood irrigation was not incorporated in the development.
Marcia Busching discussed a modification to Stipulation No. 9 regarding the
removal of pedestrian gates.
Chairwoman Daniels asked for additional questions from the committee. She
then opened the floor for public comments on this case.
Jewel Clark, member of the public, lives in the area and would like to continue
the dialogue with the applicant. She provided clarification on a statement made
and asks that this case be continued due to a pending meeting between the
community, developer and Council District 8 office on December 15, 2021.
Mike Josic, member of the public, introduced himself and agrees with Ms. Clark.
He stated that the public outreach on this project was not very good. The
developer should not have set up the previous meeting on the site, but rather at
another location. He would support a continuance on this case.
Dean Chiarelli, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that this
area is in a food desert. Roads are not able to handle this development, which is
not consistent with the current General Plan and Food Action Plan. We need to
promote agriculture here as the area is beautiful, and this community is become
a bedroom community.
Dianne Olivo, member of the public, introduced herself and provided a
background of the area. Agriculture is precious and this project is not consistent
with policy plans. She would like to know why each member supports this project
when they vote. There is a toxic property south of this site that impacts existing
residents, and this has not been discussed.
Patti Trites, member of the public, introduced herself and stated that she is
concerned with access being provided along 19th Avenue due to an existing
trailhead south of the site. This area is unique and discussed planned Maricopa
County Flood Control District projects in the area along 19th Avenue. She would
request that there be no entrance along 19th Avenue for this project.
Troy Gamm, member of the public, introduced himself and stated that he lives in
The Commons community east of the project. He stated that this is one of the
Page 1151
nicest communities he has ever lived in. The builder is responsible, and he
supports the project.
Penny Gamm, member of the public, introduced herself and stated that this is a
nice development proposed in a former cotton farm that is used as a dumping
ground. People shoot guns on this property as well. Eventually this site will be
developed, and the builder is responsible. She is concerned with the continuance
of this case being requested.
Chairwoman Daniels invited the applicant to provide a response.
Mr. Baugh stated that a trail is proposed for this development, in addition to
disclosure of surrounding uses to future owners. He seeks approval of this case.
Ms. Busching asked Ms. Clark on what she hoped to accomplish by seeking a
continuance. Ms. Clark stated that density is an issue, and she wants to balance
this with the character of the area, traffic and drainage issues. She discussed the
latest version of the site plan and stated that this version was updated before the
applicant’s meeting with the neighborhood.
Mr. Baugh responded that staff had requested an updated site plan for
Addendum A staff report. Some of the community members did not respond to
their offer to address the number of lots. The current site plan reduces the traffic,
drainage and other issues.
Greg Brownell joined the meeting at 7:00pm, bringing the quorum to 11
members.
Vice Chair Marchuk stated that he finds interesting the Council District 8 office
meeting that is scheduled.
George Brooks feels that a continuance is appropriate given the pending
Council District 8 office meeting.
Ms. Shepard discussed the pending Council District 8 office meeting.
Greg Brownell stated that the pending Council District 8 office meeting is
pointless and discussed the efforts by the applicant in addition to benefits of this
project.
Edward Aldama discussed the applicant’s efforts and stated that the area is
changing. He wants to see positive change happen and added that the developer
has made changes to their plan.
Emma Viera agrees with deciding now as the Council District 8 office meeting
will not impact the decision made today.
Page 1152
Ashley Hare stated that change is not inevitable, and we can still have beautiful
open spaces like The Farm at South Mountain.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that this project has been active for over a year and
wonders about the street maintenance responsibility. Mr. Baugh responded that
the landscaping in the right-of-way would be HOA maintained.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that grocery stores look at the number of homes
and household incomes in an area before siting a new store. The community has
changed over time. Dr. Brooks disagrees with Chairwoman Daniels and stated
that change is up to decision makers.
Chairwoman Daniels requested for additional discussion or a motion.
MOTION:
Ms. Shepard motioned to approve case Z-31-21-8 per the staff recommendation
presented in Addendum A of the staff report with a modification to Stipulation No.
9 (a).6 to remove refences to pedestrian gates. Ms. Busching seconded the
motion to approve.
VOTE:
7-3-1, motion passed; Members Aldama, Brownell, Busching, Shepard, Viera, Marchuk
and Daniels in favor; Mr. Brooks, Coleman and Holmerud in dissent. Ms. Hare abstained.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee recommend approval of the case
per the staff recommendation in Addendum A with a modification to Stipulation No. 9
to remove references to pedestrian gates.
The following stipulations incorporate the changes approved by the South Mountain
Village Planning Committee on December 14, 2021 with modifications in bold text:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department with specific regard to
the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 feet in width.
Page 1153
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
Page 1154
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
Page 1155
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY THE STIPULATIONS AND
INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS APPROVED BY THE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Page 1156
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
Page 1157
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
Page 1158
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Page 1159
Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-31-21-8
Date of VPC Meeting November 9, 2021
Request From S-1
Request To R1-10
Proposed Use Single-family residential community
Location Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain
Avenue
VPC Recommendation Continued to the December 14, 2021 South Mountain
Village Planning Committee meeting date
VPC Vote 9-2 Motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell,
Busching, Holmerud, Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels
in favor; Members Aldama and Shepard in dissent.
VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:
Seven members of the public registered to speak on this item. Three members
registered in opposition, one neutral, one in support with conditions and two in
support.
Enrique Bojórquez, staff, introduced himself and provided a presentation for the
Minor General Plan amendment case GPA-SM-2-21-8 and concurrent rezoning
case Z-31-21-8. He discussed the location of the site, noting surrounding land
uses, existing General Plan Land Use map designations, and the proposed
designation on the site. He discussed the existing zoning in the area and
requested zoning for the site. He discussed policy documents including the
General Plan and Rio Montaña Area Plan. The conceptual site plan for the
proposed single-family subdivision was shown, indicating vehicular plus
pedestrian access points, open space location, building height limitations, and lot
widths proposed. The conceptual building renderings were discussed. He
concluded the presentation by providing a staff recommendation of approval for
both cases and describing the proposed stipulations for case Z-31-21-8, as
presented in the staff report.
Adam Baugh, with Withey Morris PLC, introduced himself as the applicant and
discussed the location and history of the site. He provided an overview of each
application, discussed the demand for housing, and surrounding zoning districts.
Page 1160
He discussed the site plan, proposed project features such as fencing elements,
building renderings, goals and policies from the General Plan and Rio Montaña
Area Plan. An overview of issues related to health, safety, connectivity,
appearance, walls, and energy savings was provided. A summary of public
outreach was provided, including site plan revisions made to accommodate
drainage and other elements. Roadway and flooding-related issues were
discussed, in addition to a new rezoning stipulation proposed regarding
pedestrian access to the Western Canal from South Mountain Avenue. He
concluded the presentation by providing a summary of the project and requested
approval of both cases.
Lee Coleman and Fatima Said left the meeting at 9:05pm, bringing the quorum to
11 members.
Chairwoman Daniels asked if the committee had any questions for the applicant
or staff regarding these cases.
Gene Holmerud stated that this site is not a compound in the area.
Kay Shepard would like to see off-setting of lots and curvilinear streets for a
better community. Mr. Baugh responded that his team could address the off-
setting of the lots.
Lee Coleman asked for clarification on the development option used. He
discussed the development standards. Mr. Baugh responded that the Planned
Residential Development (PRD) option was used, and the project will follow all
development standards.
Marcia Busching is not in favor of gated communities and asked the following
questions:
• Does staff have concerns with the additional stipulation proposed by the
applicant?
• Can the fencing plan be stipulated?
• Do irrigation facilities have to be undergrounded?
Mr. Bojórquez responded that a closer review of the new stipulation would be
needed to determine if any conflicts arise. The Street Transportation Department
provided the stipulation which requires the undergrounding and relocation of
existing irrigation facilities outside of the right-of-way.
Greg Brownell stated that Mr. Baugh’s staff have done a good job. However,
Minor General Plan Amendment cases should be heard first before the rezoning
case to actively plan land uses. This is a staff problem as this is a bad way to
plan, but Mr. Baugh has done what the committee and staff should be doing. The
General Plan case should not have a companion case since this promotes a
Page 1161
suggestion on the land use. He will not vote in favor due to this procedure and
would reprimand staff if there was a formal way to do so.
Mr. Holmerud asked how water conservation was being considered. Mr. Baugh
responded that one of the stipulations limited the use of high-water use plants
such as turf.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked how the community concerns regarding the single-
story limitations was being addressed. Mr. Baugh responded that he would
agree that a minimum of 20-percent of the homes be kept at one-story.
Vice Chair Marchuk agrees with Ms. Shepard’s comments.
Chairwoman Daniels asked of flood maps had been looked at in the area. Mr.
Baugh responded that flood maps were shared by Patti Trites and these were
reviewed. The canal bank and open space locations will help address flooding.
Chairwoman Daniels likes some gated communities. She asked if members of
the public wanted to speak on this case.
Jewel Clark, resident of the area, introduced herself and asked that staff no
longer share copies of presentation slides from the public with the developer
ahead of the meeting. She showed a brief presentation and discussed the
outcome of a previous rezoning case across the street, roadways, drainage, and
the Rio Montaña Area Plan. The area should remain with existing R1-18 and S-1
zoning. She discussed traffic and flooding issues at the intersection of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue. She discussed a map depicting existing
zoning designations in the area and asked for these applications to be denied.
Mike Josic, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that in 2018 the
South Mountain VPC denied a similar rezoning request across 19th Avenue. He
asked for a 90-day continuance on the case to continue to work with the
developer. He lives in the area and would be affected. This project is not
appropriate here and liked the South Central TOD presentation. Tiny lots will
destroy the character of the area and do not reflect the existing character. There
was not enough time to meet with the developer, as he only participated once in
a virtual meeting about the project.
Erin Hegedus, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that 3 years
ago a similar conversation was had, and this project is not consistent with the Rio
Montaña Area Plan. She discussed proposed enhancements and lives across
the street from the project. She has not seen any planned improvements for the
site. She asked how this project will improve the community and stated that there
is a lack of trails now. Take a good look at this project as it will affect this
community and does not support this project.
Page 1162
Troy Gamm, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that this is a
good developer. This proposed project looks nice, has one-story limitations and
the main gate is along 19th Avenue. He supports this project.
Penny Gamm, resident of the area, introduced herself and stated that this
project keeps the feel of the area. One-story homes are good and will help keep
the views, while allowing future residents a short commute to Downtown Phoenix
and providing good access for families. This builder is thoughtful on design and
provides a good housing product.
Steven Higginbotham, resident of the area, introduced himself and stated that
he moved to this area because he enjoys recreation, and discussed the
comments made by the applicant regarding pedestrian and vehicular access. He
discussed the notification letter and feels that in general increasing the density of
the area is heading in the wrong direction. He discussed receiving the notification
letter recently and discussed his concerns.
Mr. Baugh stated that he met with Magdalena Estates early in the process and
the feedback received was incorporated from members of the public. He would
like to move forward in the process.
Vice Chair Marchuk asked if he would consider continuing the cases. Mr.
Baugh responded that he has been working on these cases for 11 months now
and has incorporated much of the feedback received. He is unsure on what else
could be accomplished by continuing the cases.
Chairwoman Daniels stated that she is a native of Phoenix and has seen this
community grow. She expects it to continue growing into the future. She asked
for questions or further discussion from the committee.
MOTION – Z-31-21-8:
Ms. Busching motioned to continue case Z-31-21-8 to the December 14, 2021
meeting date. Ms. Shepard seconded the motion to continue.
DISCUSSION – Z-31-21-8:
Ms. Alvarez supports the continuance.
Mr. Brownell discussed decreasing lumber prices.
Mr. Holmerud is not in favor of the project.
Vice Chair Marchuk expressed concerns about the impact of the continuance
on the case.
Page 1163
Ms. Busching asked the applicant to address the following items before the next
meeting:
• Off-set the lots in the development.
• Further reduce the number of two-story homes, such as 20-percent of the
lots shall be two-story.
• Incorporate flood irrigation in common areas and lots.
• Update the landscape plan.
• Incorporate the pedestrian access stipulation proposed by the applicant.
VOTE – Z-31-21-8:
9-2, motion passed; Members Alvarez, Brooks, Brownell, Busching, Holmerud,
Smith, Viera, Marchuk and Daniels in favor; Members Aldama and Shepard in
dissent.
STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:
None.
Page 1164
Attachment E
ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
South Mountain Village Planning November 9, 2021
Committee Meeting Dates: December 14, 2021
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 2, 2021
January 6, 2022
Request From: S-1 (Ranch or Farm Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Request To: R1-10 (Single-Family Residence
District) (49.52 acres)
Proposed Use: Single-family detached residential
community
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and
South Mountain Avenue
Owner: New Castle Development, LLC
Applicant: Providence Homes
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations
The Planning Commission voted unanimously (8-0) on December 2, 2021 to continue
this case to the January 6, 2022 meeting and allow the applicant to return to the South
Mountain Village Planning Committee for recommendation.
The South Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this rezoning request on
December 14, 2021 and voted (7-3-1) to approve the case per Addendum A of the staff
report with a modification to Stipulation No. 9.a (6) regarding pedestrian gates.
As a result of the discussion at the December 14, 2021 Village Planning Committee
meeting and subsequent community outreach efforts, the applicant has provided an
updated site plan and a landscape plan, attached to this report, that depicts a decrease
in the number of lots from 156 to 149 on the subject site. Furthermore, the applicant has
increased the minimum lot width from 55 feet to 60 feet for all lots.
Due to these changes, staff recommends modifying the following stipulations:
Page 1165
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
x Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance to the updated site plan and
update to the minimum lot width;
x Stipulation No. 11. regarding general conformance to updated landscape plan.
Leading up to and following the December 14, 2021 South Mountain Village Planning
Committee meeting, staff also received additional correspondence from the public
regarding this case. This additional correspondence is attached.
Staff recommends approval per the modified stipulations, reflecting updates to the site
plan and landscape plan, provided below:
Stipulations
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department
with specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required
canal frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th
Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
Page 1166
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area
at a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a
door or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent
to a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of
solid masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the
wall shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted
with a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
Page 1167
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th Avenue
and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot wide
pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the sidewalk at
19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street intersection. This
pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized granite,
decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch caliper
shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape tract
and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative pavers,
stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private
yards on individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE
Page 1168
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
STIPULATIONS AND INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT
MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along
the east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail
(MUT) within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work
Page 1169
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
with the Site Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the
technical appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of
19th Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY,
REASONABLE, SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. 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
PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
Page 1170
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-31-21-8
January 6, 2022
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants
of the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed
25. development from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis
review process, prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF
10 FEET.
Exhibits
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped January 6, 2022 (2 pages)
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped January 6, 2022
Correspondence from the public (19 pages)
Page 1171
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
W. BASELINE ROAD
-PARCEL NO. 1:
3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
LOT 6 OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
EXCEPT THE WEST 33 FEET CONVEYED TO MARICOPA COUNTY, BY QUIT CLAIM DEED
RECORDED IN BOOK 105 OF DEEDS, PAGE 361, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA. MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
S. 19th AVENUE
PARCEL NO. 2:
S. 15th AVENUE
THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
SOUTH, RANGE 3 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA PHONE: 480.734.1446
COUNTY, ARIZONA;
SITE
EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY;
THAT PART OF THE NORTHEAST OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1
SITE PLAN NOTES S 7th AVENUE
SOUTH, RANGE 3 AST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA 1. DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THIS SITE WILL CONFORM WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND
COUNTY, ARIZONA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ORDINANCES.
2. ALL NEW OR RELOCATED UTILITIES WILL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND.
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE 3. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURED BACK 10' FROM THE PROPERTY
LINE AND 20' ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON EACH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAYS ENTRANCES WILL BE
SOUTHWEST QUARTER SAID CORNER BEING MARKED WITH A CONCRETE MONUMENT ; W. DOBBINS ROAD
MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'
4. STRUCTURES AND LANDSCAPING WITHIN A TRIANGLE MEASURING 33'X33' ALONG THE PROPERTY
THENCE WEST (ASSUMEDBEARING) ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER
LINES WILL BE MAINTAINED AT A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 3'
OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER 938.38 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; 5. ANY LIGHTING WILL BE PLACED SO AS TO DIRECT LIGHT AWAY FROM ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL SECTION 6, T1S, R3E
DISTRICTS AND WILL NOT EXCEED ONE FOOT CANDLE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. NOISE, ODOR, OR VICINITY MAP
THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 3 MINUTES WEST ALONG A FENCE 1296.60 FEET TO A POINT VIBRATION WILL BE EMITTED AT ANY LEVEL EXCEEDING THE GENERAL LEVEL OF NOISE, ODOR, OR N.T.S.
MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; VIBRATION EMITTED BY USES IN THE AREA OUTSIDE OF THE SITE.
6. OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF=WAY WILL HAVE THE
THENCE NORTH 49 DEGREES 47 MINUTES EAST ALONG THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF A DITCH RESPONSIBILITY FOR MAINTAINING ALL LANDSCAPING LOCATED WITHIN THE RIGHTS-OF-WAY, IN
660.05 FEET TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. APPLICANT
7. ALL ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT AND SATELLITE DISHES SHALL BE SCREENED TO THE HEIGHT OF THE
THENCE NORTH 40 DEGREES 26 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID DITCH 250.40 FEET TALLEST EQUIPMENT. NEWCASTLE DEVELOPMENT, LLC
TO A POINT MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; 8. ALL SERVICE AREAS SHALL BE SCREENED TO CONCEAL TRASH CONTAINERS, LOADING DOCKS, 6628 E. BASELINE ROAD
TRANSFORMERS, BACKFLOW PREVENTERS, AND OTHER MECHANICAL OR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SUITE 102
THENCE NORTH 27 DEGREES 30 MINUTES EAST CONTINUING ALONG SAID DITCH 596.80 FROM EYE LEVEL ADJACENT TO ALL PUBLIC STREETS.
MESA, AZ. 85206
FEET TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST 9. BARBED, RAZOR OR CONCERTINA WIRE (OR SMALLER) SHALL NOT BE USED ON THIS SITE WHERE
QUARTER OF SECTION 6, SAID POINT BEING MARKED WITH AN IRON PIPE; VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC STREETS AND ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
10. ALL SIGNAGE REQUIRES SEPARATE REVIEWS, APPROVALS, AND PERMITS. NO SIGNS ARE APPROVED
THENCE NORTH 0 DEGREES 16 MINUTES WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE 142.93 FEET TO THE PER THIS PLAN.
POINT OF BEGINNING; AND
ENGINEER
EXCEPT ANY PORTION LYING EASTERLY OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE WESTERN PROJECT DESCRIPTION BFH GROUP
CANAL.
TYPICAL LOT DETAIL SOUTH MOUNTAIN 50 IS A PROPOSED 156 LOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION. 3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
R1-10 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS - PRD MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
SITE ADDRESS PHONE: 480.734.1446
STANDARDS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED STANDARD CONTACT: DAVID M. BOHN
1835 W. SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
MIN LOT WIDTH (IN THE EVENT 45' MINUMIN (UNLESS APPROVED BY 60' PHOENIX, AZ. 85041
OF HORIZONTAL PROPERTY EITHER THE DESIGN ADVISOR OR THE
REGIMES, "LOT" SHALL REFER TO SINGLE FAMILY ARCHITECTURAL APPEALS
THE WIDTH OF THE STRUCTURE BOARD FOR DEMONSTRATING ENHANCED BENCHMARK
AND EXCLUSIVE USE AREA) ARCITECTURE THAT MINIMIZES THE IMPACT
CITY OF PHOENIX MONUMENT: 2INCH IRON PIPE WITH REBAR IN CENTER, LOCATED AT THE
OF THE GARAGE.
INTERSECTION OF 7TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE.
ELEVATION = 1190.72 (NGVD-29, CITY OF PHOENIX DATUM)
MINIMUM LOT DEPTH NONE, EXCEPT 110' ADJACENT TO FREEWAY 122'
OR ARTERIAL BASIS OF BEARING SITE SUMMARY
THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, T.1S., R.3E., G.&S.R.B.&M.
DWELLING UNIT DENSITY 3.5; 4.5 WITH BONUS 3.00 DU/AC WHICH BEARING N 89° 43' 11" WEST, AS SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT OF "THE COMMONS AT GROSS AREA = 2,162,702 SQ. FT. OR 49.65 ACRES
(UNITS/GROSS ACRE) SOUTH MOUNTAIN" RECORDED IN BOOK 905, PAGE 34, MARICOPA COUNTY RECORDS. NET AREA = 2,035,910 SQ. FT. OR 46.74 ACRES
EXISTING ZONING = S-1
MIN. PERIMETER BUILDING STREET (FRONT, REAR OR SIDE): 15' (IN STREET (FRONT, REAR OR SIDE) 15'; (IN PROPOSED ZONING = R1-10
SETBACKS ADDITION TO LANDSCAPE SETBACK); ADDITION TO LANDSCAPE SETBACK); PARCEL NUMBERS = 300-49-003C, -004, -005
PROPERTY LINE (REAR): 15' (1-STORY), 20' PROPERTY LINE (REAR) 15' (1-STORY) 20' NUMBER OF LOTS = 149
(2-STORY); (2-STORY), FLOODPLAIN DESIGNATION LOTS AREA = 1,275,369.98 SQ. FT. (TOTAL)
PROPERTY LINE (SIDE): 10' (1-STORY) PROPERTY LINE (SIDE); 10' (1-STORY) PROPOSED DENSITY = 3.00 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
Page 1172
15' (2-STORY) 15' (2-STORY) THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN SHADED ZONE "X" DEFINED AS "AREAS OF 0.2%
LOCAL STREET ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; AREAS OF 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD WITH AVERAGE DEPTHS LOT SALES PROPOSED = YES
OF LESS THAN 1 FOOT OR WITH DRAINAGE AREAS LESS THAN 1 SQUARE MILE; AND AREA COMMON AREA = 356,845 SQ. FT. (TOTAL) OR 16.5% (GROSS AREA)
COP DETAIL P1014 PROTECTED BY LEVEES FROM 1% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD; PER FIRM MAP NO. 04013C2680L, RETENTION = ABOVE GROUND BASINS
COMMON LANDSCAPED SETBACK 15' AVERAGE, 10' MINIMUM (DOES NOT 15' AVERAGE, 10' MINIMUM (DOES NOT
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION A DATED OCTOBER 16, 2013.
ADJACENT TO PERIMITER STREETS APPLY TO LOTS FRONTING ONTO APPLY TO LOTS FRONTING ONTO
PERIMETER STREETS) PERIMETER STREETS)
MIN. INTERIOR BUILDING SETBACK FRONT: 10';REAR: NONE; (ESTABLISHED BY FRONT: 10';REAR: NONE; (ESTABLISHED BY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE LEGEND
BUILDING CODE); STREET SIDE; 10' SIDES; BUILDING CODE); STREET SIDE; 10' SIDES;
NONE (ESTABLISHED BY BUILDING CODE) NONE (ESTABLISHED BY BUILDING CODE)
THIS PROPOSAL INTENDS TO SUBDIVIDE THE 49.5 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 156 SINGLE FAMILY BOUNDARY
LOTS. THESE LOTS WILL BE DEVELOPED UNDER R1-10 ZONING STANDARDS. PRD DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS. CENTERLINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
MIN. BUILDING SEPARATION NONE NONE
SERVICE PROVIDERS LOT LINE
MIN. GARAGE SETBACK 18' FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK FOR 18' FROM BACK OF SIDEWALK FOR EASEMENT
FRONT-LOADED GARAGES, 10' FROM FRONT-LOADED GARAGES, 10' FROM WATER CITY OF PHOENIX
PROPERTY FOR SIDE-LOADED GARAGES PROPERTY FOR SIDE-LOADED GARAGES SEWER CITY OF PHOENIX
POLICE CITY OF PHOENIX
FIRE CITY OF PHOENIX
MIN. GARAGE WIDTH FOR LOTS <60': 2 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS FOR LOTS <60': 2 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS ELECTRIC SALT RIVER PROJECT
>60' TO 70': 3 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS >60' TO 70': 3 CAR WIDTHS, FOR LOTS >70':
>70': NO MAXIMUM NO MAXIMUM
SOUTH 19TH AVENUE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 2 STORIES AND 30' (EXCEPT THAT 3 2 STORIES AND 30' (EXCEPT THAT 3 STORIES TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
STORIES NOT EXCEEDING 30' ARE NOT EXCEEDING 30' ARE PERMITTED WHEN LOOKING NORTH
PERMITTED WHEN APPROVED BY THE APPROVED BY THE DESIGN ADVISOR FOR
DESIGN ADVISOR FOR DEMONSTRATING DEMONSTRATING ENHANCED
ENHANCED ARCHITECTURE. ARCHITECTURE.
LOT COVERAGE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING PRIMARY STRUCTURE, NOT INCLUDING
ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES: 40% ATTACHED SHADE STRUCTURES: 40%
TOTAL 50% TOTAL 50%
COMMON AREAS MINIMUM 5% OF GROSS AREA 16.5%
ALLOWED USES SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
REQUIRED REVIEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PER SECTION 507,
AND SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 4 OR MORE AND SUBDIVISION TO CREATE 4 OR MORE
LOTS LOTS
STREET STANDARDS PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY(1) PUBLIC STREET OR PRIVATE ACCESSWAY(1)
ON-LOT AND COMMON COMMON RETENTION REQUIRED FOR COMMON RETENTION AREAS
RETENTION LOTS LESS THAN 8,000 SQ. FT. PER SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE
GRADING AND DRAINAGE ORDINANCE
REQUIREMENTS TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
LOOKING EAST
LANDSCAPE STANDARDS PERIMETER COMMON: TREES SPACED A PERIMETER COMMON: TREES SPACED A
MAXIMUM OD 20 TO 30 FEET ON CENTER MAXIMUM OD 20 TO 30 FEET ON CENTER
(BASED ON SPECIES) OR IN EQUIVALENT (BASED ON SPECIES) OR IN EQUIVALENT
GROUPINGS, AND 5 SHRUBS PER TREE. GROUPINGS, AND 5 SHRUBS PER TREE.
1 OF 2
NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
3707 EAST SOUTHERN AVENUE
NW COR SEC 6
BRASS CAP IN HAND HOLE
FOUND
MESA, ARIZONA, 85206
20' SRP IRRIGATION
30' SEWER EASEMENT 4 RAYMOND / SHIRLEY BRANHAM
1 MAGDALENA ESTATES
PHONE: 480.734.1446
EASEMENT SRP IRRIGATION
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 3 EASEMENT 12'
UNSUBDIVIDED
30' SEWER WATERLINE
EASEMENT
1 2 ZONING: S-1
R1-18 SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVE. EASEMENT
APN: 300-46-007A
10' SRP IRRIGATION
4 EASEMENT
1 2 3 4 5 11
6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15
33' 20' IRRIGATION
R.O.W. EASEMENT 3
PW AGAIN, LLC
UNSUBDIVIDED 16
ZONING: S-1 149
APN: 300-17-009R
147 146 145 144 143 138 137 136 135 134 133
142 141 140 139
101 18
102 103 104 105 106 108 109 132
107 110 111
100 19
COMMONS AT SOUTH MOUNTAIN
SITE SUMMARY
33'
R.O.W. GROSS AREA = 2,162,702 SQ. FT. OR 49.65 ACRES
NET AREA = 2,035,910 SQ. FT. OR 46.74 ACRES
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
112 129 21 EXISTING ZONING = S-1
99 98 97 96 95 94 93 92 91 90 89 PROPOSED ZONING = R1-10
PARCEL NUMBERS = 300-49-003C, -004, -005
ZONING: S-1 NUMBER OF LOTS = 149
113 LOTS AREA = 1,275,369.98 SQ. FT. (TOTAL)
Page 1173
PROPOSED DENSITY = 3.00 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE
33' 22
19TH AVENUE
R.O.W. LOT SALES PROPOSED = YES
COMMON AREA = 356,845 SQ. FT. (TOTAL) OR 16.5% (GROSS AREA)
114 RETENTION = ABOVE GROUND BASINS
78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88
115 126
ARIZONA WORM FARM LLC. 116 24
UNSUBDIVIDED
117 124 25
ZONING: S-1
75 74 73 66 65
72 71 70 69 68 67 64
APN: 300-17-009H 76
118 123
119 122
52 53 54 55 56 57 58 61
59 60 62
63 27
120 121
33'
R.O.W.
49 48 47 46 45 44 42 36 35
43 41 40 39 38 37 34 33 31 30
32 29
ANN H. KERR
UNSUBDIVIDED
ZONING: S-1
APN: 300-49-006J
SW COR SEC 6
ALUMINUM CAP FLUSH
FOUND
BRASS CAP FLUSH 2 OF 2
NOT APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
FOUND
Page 1174
Racelle Escolar
From: Dianne Olivo
Sent: Thursday, December 2, 2021 1:17 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8
Iamdirectlyacrossfromthisproposedproject.
IamopposedtotherezoningofagriculturepropertyitshouldremainaszonedagricultureAnd1dwellingperacrefor
followingreasons:
#1Densitywouldincreasestrainonalreadystretchedwaterresourcesespeciallyduringdrought.Thereshouldbean
impactstudyofthewateruseandneedsaswellasalltheotherreasonsi.e.trafficandespeciallythepollutionimpactof
adjacentneighbortosouth(producesmethanegas)intotheair.
2Ͳbuildoutirrigationthroughoutdevelopmenttoeach1acrelotandincreasepricingtooffset.
3ͲBottomlinethereisnoprovenneedformorenondescripthousinganywherecurrently.especiallytakingoutvaluable
agriculturalquicklydisappearinglandtobepavedunderasphaltaddingtoourclimatechangeandOͲZoneproblems
that’swhywehavezoningandhopefullyresponsiblepeopleontheboard
DianneOlivo
TDRANCH
8804S19thAve
Page11175
From: Patti Trites
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Cc: Tamala Daniels; trentchristopher@gmail.com; Marcia Busching; twanna.bhna@yahoo.com; Greg Brownell;
edward@yourgreatestself.com; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: REquest to speak and comment: Z-31-21-8 GPA-SM-3-21-8
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 12:05:57 PM
Dear Enrique
I would like to register to at tomorrow's SMVPC.
I would like to also speak for Agenda Item # 6 & 7 for Z-31-21-8 companion case GPA -SM -
3-21-8
- Thank you in advance for contacting the Maricopa County Flood Control District and
looking at the flood maps of this property.
- Thank you also for keeping the entrance and exit into this new proposed community
off of 19th Avenue.
19th Avenue is the entrance to the South Mountain Trailhead: 19th Ave. (Ma-Ha-Tauk)
Trailhead at 10484 S. 19th Ave.
Per the COP own site: At more than 16,000 acres, South Mountain Park/Preserve is one of
the largest municipally managed parks in the nation and consists
of three mountain ranges - the Ma Ha Tauk, Gila and Guadalupe. The park boasts more
than 50 miles of trails for hiking, horseback riding and mountain
biking. Additionally, the roadways throughout the park are a favorite for bicyclists.
- Safety and the beauty of South Mountain should be maintained as new development
happens in the area.
Many people - residents and visitors - utilize 19th Avenue as their entrance onto South
Mountain Trailhead.
Keep it safe. Do not allow entrance or exits onto 19th avenue for new developments.
- Flood Control and COP are also planning on a 66" storm drain pipe and catch basins
along 19th Avenue to South Mountain.
Keep 19th Avenue free of resident traffic as possible for safety.
- Please keep the South Mountain Area looking complementary to its surroundings;
1. Avoid block walls 'prison' effect around the new communities.
2. Please include plenty of plants/trees and Decorative Iron Fencing to surround the new
developments.
3. Please have interior green space for the new residents.
These three items - when done correctly - will enhance the area and match the unique
South Mountain Preserve Area.
Lets keep South Mountain Preserve beautiful.
Thank you.
Patti Trites
Homeowner at South Mountain
President of Southern Hills HOA
Cell: 402 213 7126
Page 1176
Email: pattihoash@gmail.com
Page 1177
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Kimura - case Z-31-21-8 (GPA-SM-2-21-8 is currently continued)
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 6:45:09 PM
I am asking for a continuance to this case.
The developer has recently met with the community but has submitted to the Council a different
plan that was discussed. I believe this project is being accelerated without documentation on what
the community is asking in order to maintain the character and diversity of our neighborhood.
I am extremely concerned with how the infrastructure is going to support this development in
addition to the existing, let alone the new homes that are currently under construction on South
Mountain Avenue and Dobbins Road.
These roadways are 1 to 2 lane roads that currently cannot support the traffic, I ask that you
consider this, and before approving further development, conduct a study plan in advance to
understand the impact, not only on the traffic but the heat island this and other developments are
creating.
Respectfullly,
Erin Hegedus
8630 South 19th Avenue
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
Page 1178
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
To: Council District 8 PCC; Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 9:45:30 PM
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
Best,
Rebekah
Page 1179
From: Steven Higginbotham
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Date: Sunday, December 12, 2021 10:18:14 PM
Hello,
I live near 19th Avenue and South Mountain and I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8
and GPA-SM-2-21-8 (aka Kimura Gardens).
.
Steven Higginbotham
1804 w Magdalena Ln, Phoenix, AZ 85041
--
Steven Higginbotham
Page 1180
From: JoAnne Jensen
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8 Continuance Recommendation
Date: Monday, December 13, 2021 7:54:18 PM
Hello -
This is to request a continuance for item Z-31-21-8, to rezone the 49.5 acre parcel on the southeast
corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain to R1-18.
The community is in ongoing discussions with the Providence group, who is developing this parcel.
The current stipulations do not and will likely not be reflected in the final proposal, when all is said
and done. It is my feeling that the South Mountain Village Planning Committee should have the
opportunity to review the final version and make its recommendation to the Planning Commission
based on something that is more than notional.
We thank the Providence group for their time and attention to the neighbors and hope that we are
nearing completion of our talks.
We also believe that there is no harm done by taking a deep breath; by taking our time, we will get it
right rather than rushing into something which is ill-conceived and which may have unintended
consequences.
Please add me to the list of those requesting a continuance. A continuance is not a rejection, nor
does it equate with opposition. We know there will be development, we just want to be sure it is
appropriate to this area.
Thank you all very much for your efforts on behalf of our unique rural community.
JoAnne Jensen
8303 S. 17th Drive (Magdalena Estates)
Phoenix AZ 85041
480-213-6499
Page 1181
From: Dean Chiarelli
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: December 14: SMVPC Meeting
Date: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:45:32 AM
Attachments: Outlook-rmpvn2ah.png
Outlook-o00zkkho.png
Mr. Bojorquez-Gaxiola:
I have been a South Mountain resident and homeowner for 9.5 years. I registered for the
South Mountain Village Planning Committee meeting on December 14th and would like to
comment if possible. In case I cannot speak, I’m documenting my opposition to three
rezoning items. The Committee should disapprove rezoning to increase the number of
residential units. The proposed changes will cause excessive vehicle traffic and congestion on
the local streets. The new homes currently under construction in the surrounding area are
not even fully built yet, and there is already much traffic at the intersection where 19th
Avenue meets Dobbins Road. Many of the streets in the rezoning area were built as "country
roads" -- not meant for higher-density residential developments. In the future, there should
be a new traffic study when the latest homes along the Dobbins corridor (7th Avenue to Loop
202) are occupied.
The right developers for this land should integrate their plans within the current zoning. The
South Mountain area is a unique and historic location, and it is quickly becoming a generic
bedroom community with roads not built to meet the needs of higher-volume residential
developments.
_____________________________________________
Z-31-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-2-21-8)- OPPOSE
GPA-SM-3-21-8 (Companion Case Z-58-21-8)- OPPOSE
Z-58-21-8 (Companion Case GPA-SM-3-21-8)- OPPOSE
_____________________________________________
Dean Chiarelli, Mobile phone 702-994-8077
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed [nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page 1182
Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2021 11:40 AM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: Re: Opposition to Cases GPA-SM-3-21-8 and Z-58-21-8 - SMVPC meeting Dec. 14, 2021
HiEnrique,
Thankyou!Here'smyletterforKimura.
OppositiontocaseZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8,agendaitem#6
IamwritinginoppositiontotheKimuraGardensdevelopmentproject(casenumberreferencedabove)andto
requestacontinuanceforthereasonsstatedhere.
DespitethecommitteevotingtoapprovetheGeneralPlanAmendment(caseGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8),bothplansare
overwhelminglyopposedbythesurroundingcommunityfortheprincipalreasonthatthedensityiswholly
inappropriateforourareainadditiontoissuesoftraffic,flooding,andheatislandconcernsthathavenot
beenaddressed.Sincethelastcommitteemeetingtherehavebeenotherdevelopmentsthatkeepthe
communityopposedtotheplanassubmitted.
We'vehadsomechallengesinworkingwithWitheyMorrisandMr.Poulsentofindcommonground.
TheViceMayorisawareoftheneighborhood'sconcernsandhasarrangedameeting,whichhewillattend,for
theneighborsandMr.Poulsen/WitheyMorristotalkthroughouroutstandingissueswiththisdevelopment.
ThatmeetingisscheduledforWednesday,Dec.15.Acontinuanceuntilsuchtalksarecompleteisrespectfully
requested.
Sincerely,
JewelClark
2020W.SouthMountainAve.
Phoenix,AZ85041
ͲͲ
H.JewelClark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
OnTue,Dec14,2021,at8:16AM,EnriqueABojorquezͲGaxiolawrote:
GoodmorningJewel,
Howareyou?Thankyouforsendingoverthefollowinginformationonthesetwocases.Iwillsavea
copyinthecasefileandwillshareitwiththeSouthMountainVPCaswell.
Bytheway,theChairhasagreedtohearyourpresentationtonight.Iwouldanticipatemaybe2minutes
forthepresentation,butshewillassigntheactualtimetoallspeakers.
Page 1183
Racelle Escolar
From: Dean Chiarelli
Sent: Monday, January 3, 2022 5:24 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: SMVPC Meeting January 6th - Opposition Notice
ToSouthMountainVillagePlanningCommittee:
Re:MeetingThursday,January6th
Iamstronglyopposedtotheitemsindicatedbelowandrequesttospeak.
CasenumbersGPAͲSMͲ3Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ58Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems2and3).
CasenumbersGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems8and9).
Iamopposedtotheitemsbecauseofexcessivecongestiononsurfaceroads.TheSMVPCisauthorizing
excessiveapprovalsofrezoningintheareaintandemwithalackofnewculturalamenities/businessesto
enhancequalityoflifeinthearea.Theruralcharacteroftheareaisrapidlychangingfortheworst,andthisis
againsttheCityofPhoenixplanningcodesandFoodPlanforSouthPhoenix.Irespectfullyrequestanupdated
trafficstudywhichincludesactivityforhomescurrentlyunderconstructionintheDobbinsCorridor.Thereare
newhomesalongDobbinsRoadfrom16thStreetallthewaytotheLoop202whicharen'tevenbuiltyetthat
willincreasethecongestion.
IalsowanttoexpressconcerntheChairoftheCommitteestatedintheDecember2021meetingthatsheisa
RealtorwhogrewupinSouthPhoenix.ThereisanappearanceofbiastowardsapprovalofhigherͲdensity
residentialzoningforwhichtheChairmaypersonallybenefit.
Dean Chiarelli, MA, RDN, CEP, CHES, REHS
Clinical Assistant Professor
500 North 3rd Street | Phoenix, AZ 85004
Ph: 602.496.1867 | dean.chiarelli@asu.edu
https://nursingandhealth.asu.ed[nursingandhealth.asu.edu]
Page11184
Racelle Escolar
From: Erin Hegedus
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:47 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; Adriana Garcia Maximiliano
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8
Iamwritingtorequestacontinuanceofthereferenced.Wehavehadverypromisingnegotiationswiththedeveloper,
however,weaskthataformalsubmissionofthechangesthedeveloperagreedtobepresentedtotheneighborbefore
thiscouncilvotes.
Respectfully,
ErinHegedus,CMRP
8630South19thAvenue
Phoenix,AZ85041
Page11185
Racelle Escolar
From: rob@copperstatemetals.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 8:49 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 items 8 and 9
4JAN2022
HonorablePlanningCommissionMembers:
WearewritingtovoiceouroppositiontotheKimuradevelopmentasitcurrentlystands.Ourconcernsaretheincrease
intrafficonstreetswhicharealreadyusedbeyondtheircapacity.Byanydefinition,portionsofSouthMountainAve.
and15thAve.areonlyonelaneandpoorlymaintained.AdditionallytheintersectionofSouthMountainand19thAve.
isalreadydangerousandwillonlygetworsewiththeadditionofwellover100homesinthisdevelopmentalone.We
wouldalsoasktheCommissiontoconsidertheeffectonthepropertyvaluesofthecurrentresidents.Mostlotsare1/4
acreandmoreinthearea,andmosthomesarewellover2200sfaswellassinglestoryonly.Allowingsmallerhomeson
smallerlotswillonlyexacerbatethecurrenttrafficanddrainageissuesintheareaandnegativelyimpacttheproperty
valuesoftheestablishedresidentsinordertoallowthedeveloperstomakemoremoney.Thisisnotgoodforthe
communityanditisnotjust.Thankyouforyourtimeandconsideration.
Respectfully,
RobertD.Barnes
GeniveveR.Tapia
8312S.18thLane
Phoenix,AZ85041
Page11186
Racelle Escolar
From: azleatherking
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 3:19 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Kimura project 19th ave
MynameisDonOlson,andIown8640s19ave,acrossthestreetfromtheproposedKimuraproject.Iamvehemently
opposedtothedensityofhomesbeingaskedforbythedeveloper.Thisareaisag/residential,andtheinfrastructure
doesnotsupportwhatisherenow,muchlessadding150houses.
GPAͲsmͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8
ZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8
Donolson8640s19ave,phx85041
6024345641
SentfrommyTͲMobile4GLTEDevice
Page11187
Racelle Escolar
From: H. Jewel Clark
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 6:01 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Letter of opposition GPA-SM-2-21-8 and Z-31-21-8 (Agenda items 8 and 9)
IamwritingtoopposeGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Agendaitems8and9)andrequestacontinuanceonbothcases.
ThesurroundingcommunityisstillindiscussionswithMr.PoulsenandWitheyMorrisonfinaldensityandheat
mitigationandtheViceMayorhasscheduledanothermeetingforustotrytofinalizeaplanthatboththedeveloperand
thecommunitycanlivewithJan.13.Duetotheholidays,ithasnotbeenfeasibletoarrangeanearliermeetingsinceour
lastoneDec.15.
TheassertionyoumayhearfromWitheyMorristhattheyhavebeenworkingwiththeneighborsonthisprojectfora
yearisnotaccurate.WitheyMorrisstarteddialogwiththebroadercommunitysurroundingthispropertyonlyintheFall
of2021,withlimitedchangesfromtheoriginalplansubmittedatthefirstSMVPCmeeting.
Forexample,AdamBaughincludedatimelineinhispresentationtotheSouthMountainVillagePlanningCommittee
thatreadinpart:
“Proposedsiteplandevelopedthroughextensiveoutreachandinputwithsurroundingresidents,additional
changesafterNovemberSMVPCduetoinputfromonͲsiteneighbormeetingandfollowͲupconversations.”
TheplanthatwasshownattheDec.14SMVPCmeetingwasstampedbytheCityPlanningOfficeNov.24,5daysbefore
thefirstneighborhoodmeetingonͲsitethathereferences.Thechangesonthatplanwerebasedoninputfromthe
SMVPC,NOTtheneighborhoodmeetingorfollowupconversations.Theneighborsneedtobeincludedinwhatever
changesaremadenext.
Thecommunitywouldlovetobedonewiththis,butbasedonthelastplanwehaveseen,itissimplynotacceptableto
theexistingneighbors.However,Iamoptimisticwecanfindcompromise.
SouthMountainisundertremendouspressurefromdevelopers,andweareswiftlylosingtheruralcharacterand
agriculturalpracticethatmakeitsuchauniqueplacetolive.Wehavealreadyboughtourpropertiesandbuiltto
preservethatopen,ruralsenseofplace.Wewanttoworkwithdevelopersinterestedinbuildingheretocreate
somethingthatfits.Wecanmakethathappenbutweneedyoutoholddevelopersaccountabletoworkingingoodfaith
withtheexistingcommunity.Wecandoit,butweneedmoretime.Pleasevotetocontinue.
Sincerely,
JewelClark
2020W.SouthMountainAve.
Phoenix,AZ85041
ͲͲ
H.JewelClark
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
Page11188
From:JoAnneJensen
Sent:Tuesday,January4,20225:08PM
To:PDDPlanningCommission
Cc:AdrianaGarciaMaximiliano
Subject:GPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8andZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8/KimuraGardens
Helloandthankyoufortakingmycomments.
MynameisJoAnneJensen,ouraddressis8303So.17thDrive,PhoenixAZ85041;thisisinMagdalenaEstates,whichistotheimmediatenorthof
theparcelwhichtheProvidencegroupwishestodevelop,andwhichisthesubjectofthetworequests,namedabove.
IhavebeenoneoftwopointsofcontactbetweentheSouthMountainneighborsandtheProvidencegroupandthankMr.Poulsen,BenTate,and
AdamBaughoftheProvidencegroupfortheirpatientattentionthroughoutourdiscussions.
Itisimportanttonotethatthesediscussionsareongoingandinfact,thepresentstipulationsareoutofdatewithcurrentconversationsandlikely
agreements.Whatweneedmorethananythingisacontinuationsothatwecanmaintainprogresstowardresolvingourremainingdifferences.
Ifacontinuationisnotgranted,thenIcannotsupportthecurrentstipulations,particularlytheabsenceofrobustheatmitigationmeasuresandthe
presenceofahighnumberofdwellings.Tobeveryspecific–thisisnotanobjectiontothedevelopment,ortoafutureagreementregarding
stipulations,butsolelytothecurrentstipulations–densityandabsenceofheatmitigationefforts.
Generalconsensuswithinthiscommunityisthatresponsibledevelopmentinthefaceofclimatechangeandtheproximityofthewarmestlocation
inPhoenixmustnecessarilyincludeheatmitigationefforts.Onemightarguethatheatmitigationeffortsonone50acredevelopmentwillmakeno
difference–butthisisthekindofargumentwhichhasledtotoday’sproblemswithexcessiveheatandparchingconditions.Absentsufficient
stipulations,thisplanisunacceptable.
Neighborsdonotobjecttodevelopment,perse,howeverwefeelitshouldbeinkeepingwiththeRioMontanageneralplan,whichwasinplace
whenweeachdecidedtoinvestinthisruralandagriculturalpartoftown.Thereisageneralsensethattheconcernsofcurrentresidentsand
businessownersarebeingsetasidetomeeteconomicinterestsofthedeveloper.WewouldnothaveobjectedtoR1Ͳ18zoning.Indeed,wewould
nothaveobjectedtoR1Ͳ18withbonus,whichwouldhaveenabled114dwellings,asthatissimilartothetwoadjacentdevelopments,The
Commons(which,incidentally,isalsoaProvidencedevelopment)andMagdalenaEstates.However,wedonotsupportthebuildingof156homes,
asthestipulationcurrentlyreads.Mr.PoulsenandtheProvidencegrouphavearguedthattheyhavebeenmakingmanyconcessions–fromtwo
storiestoone,from180unitsto173to156,andtheseareappreciated.However,theneighborslikewisefeelthatdensitybeyondR1Ͳ18with
bonusisasignificantconcession.
WeareconcernedthatthelastCitytrafficstudyinthisareawithinthe2012–2013timeframe.Sincethen,quiteafewhomeshavebeenbuiltand
webelievethattheadditionofthisdevelopmentatthecurrentlyrequesteddensitywillleadtoevenmoretrafficcongestionthanwealready
experience.Atpresent,thethoroughfaresarewoefullyinadequatetosupportthislevelofgrowthanddevelopersarerequiredtoimproveonly
thelengthsofpavementparalleltothedevelopmentpropertyline.Webelievethatthelackofuniformitywillnotbesufficienttoprovidesafeand
uncongestedtrafficflowsoneither19thAvenueorSouthMountain.
Insummary–myprimaryrequestisthatthePlanningCommissionissuesacontinuationforthetwoaboveͲreferencedrequestssothatthe
neighborsandtheProvidencegroupcanpursueongoingdiscussionsandcometoareasonableresolve.Again,wedonotobjecttodevelopment,
perse,butwerequesttimetoachievethisgoal.
Thankyouforyourtimeandattention.
JoAnneJensen
Cell–480Ͳ213Ͳ6499
Email–joannejensen@cox.net
Page11189
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven & Rebekah Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Ilivenear19thAvenueandSouthMountainandIsupportcontinuanceforcasesZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8andGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8(aka
KimuraGardens)onthefollowinggrounds:discussionsbetweendiscussionsbetweenthecommunityandthe
developersareongoingandthecurrentlysubmittedstipulationsarenotonlyinconsistentwiththoseconversationsbut
alsoinadequateforthesafetyandqualityoflifeofthiscommunity.
Best,
Rebekah
Page11190
Racelle Escolar
From: Ravi Sharma
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 5:03 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: Item # 2 and Case # GPA-SM-3-21-8, Item #3 and Case # Z-58-21-8, Item # 8 and Case #GPA-SM-2-21-8
(Continued from 12/2/2021), Item # 9 and Case #
ZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8(Continuedfrom12/2/2021)
Weareopposedtotheproposedchanges.
Dr.RaviandMrs.SnigdhaSharma
Page11191
Racelle Escolar
From: Steven Higginbotham
Sent: Tuesday, January 4, 2022 4:14 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission; Council District 8 PCC; adriana.garcia.maximilliano@phoenix.gov
Subject: I support continuance for cases Z-31-21-8 and GPA-SM-2-21-8
Ilivenear19thAvenueandSouthMountainandIsupportcontinuanceforcasesZͲ31Ͳ21Ͳ8andGPAͲSMͲ2Ͳ21Ͳ8(aka
KimuraGardens)onthefollowinggrounds:discussionsbetweendiscussionsbetweenthecommunityandthe
developersareongoingandthecurrentlysubmittedstipulationsarenotonlyinconsistentwiththoseconversationsbut
alsoinadequateforthesafetyandqualityoflifeofthiscommunity.
ͲͲ
StevenHigginbotham
Page11192
Page 1193
Attachment F
REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
January 6, 2022
ITEM NO: 9
DISTRICT NO.: 8
SUBJECT:
Application #: Z-31-21-8 (Continued from 12/2/2021)
Location: Southeast corner of 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue
From: S-1
To: R1-10
Acreage: 49.52
Proposal: Single-family detached residential community
Applicant: Providence Homes
Owner: Newcastle Development, LLC
Representative: Benjamin Tate, Withey Morris, PLC
ACTIONS:
Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Reports.
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
South Mountain 11/9/2021 Continued to December 14, 2021. Vote: 9-2.
South Mountain 12/14/2021 Approval, per the Addendum A Staff Report with a modified
stipulation. Vote: 7-3 (1 abstained).
Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with an
additional stipulation.
Motion Discussion: N/A
Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-31-21-8, per the
Addendum B Staff Report, with the additional stipulation as read into the record.
Maker: Busching
Second: McCabe
Vote: 8-0
Absent: Shank
Opposition Present: Yes
Findings:
1. This proposed development provides a housing option that is consistent with
development patterns in the general area.
2. As stipulated, the proposed development is generally consistent with design policies
and the intent of the Rio Montaña Area Plan.
3. This proposed development is appropriately located along an arterial street, 19th
Avenue, which connects to Baseline Road where transit service is present.
Page 1194
Stipulations:
1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
November 2, 2021 NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department with
specific regard to the following:
a. Lots 1 through 28 shall be a minimum of 75 feet in width.
b. All other lots shall be a minimum of 55 60 feet in width.
c. Portions of lots 28 and 29 may be modified to accommodate any required canal
frontage standards.
d. The location of the open space areas.
e. A minimum of 17 16 percent of the gross site area shall be provided as open
space.
f. A minimum building setback of 150 feet, exclusive of fencing or entry features,
shall be provided along the western perimeter property line along 19th Avenue.
2. The required landscape setbacks shall be planted with minimum 50-percent 2-inch
caliper and 50-percent 3-inch caliper large canopy drought-tolerant trees, 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, with five 5-gallon shrubs per tree, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.
3. The maximum building height shall be limited to two stories and 30 feet, except that
lots 1 through 53, 82, 83, 108, 109, 159 and 160 as depicted on the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2021, shall be limited to one story and 20 22 feet.
4. All lots within the development shall be subject to Single-Family Design Review,
including 75-foot wide lots, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
5. Building elevations shall be developed to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department:
a. Building elevations shall contain multiple colors, exterior accent materials and
textural changes that exhibit quality and durability such as brick, stone, colored
textured concrete or stucco, or other materials to provide a decorative and
aesthetic treatment.
b. A minimum of 50 percent of the elevations for each floor plan shall provide a
covered front porch in the front yard with a minimum of 60 square feet in area at
a depth of at least six feet. No porch shall terminate within the plane of a door
or window.
c. Pitched roofs shall be provided on all building elevations.
Page 1195
6. The development shall be in general conformance with the fencing exhibit (landscape
plan) and elevations date stamped October 14, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.
a. Full open view fencing shall be utilized where an open space tract is adjacent to
a canal.
b. Where view fencing is required by the Zoning Ordinance, a combination of solid
masonry wall and view fencing may be utilized. The solid portion of the wall
shall not exceed 4 feet in height.
c. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall include minimum 3-foot offsets.
d. Perimeter walls bounding the rear yard property lines of residential lots along
South Mountain Avenue shall be limited to a maximum of 5 feet solid and
topped with open view fencing, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
7. Project entry drives along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative
material, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
8. Project entry drives shall incorporate enhanced landscaping on both sides planted with
a variety of at least three plant materials, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. Each landscaped area shall be a minimum of 250-square
feet.
9. A minimum system of pedestrian connections shall be provided, as described below
and as approved by the Planning and Development Department:
a. A system of pedestrian connections to/between via the most direct route:
(1) Amenity areas.
(2) Sidewalks.
(3) Pedestrian path connecting the northern and southern portions of the site
via a centralized pathway.
(4) The common open space tract along the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall contain a minimum 8-foot
wide pedestrian pathway that connects the development with the
sidewalk at 19th Avenue or South Mountain Avenue near the street
intersection. This pathway shall be constructed of decomposed stabilized
granite, decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar
alternative material. The landscaped tract shall contain minimum 2-inch
caliper shade trees planted a minimum of 25 feet on center or equivalent
groupings, along both sides of the pedestrian pathway.
(5) A minimum 8-foot wide pedestrian pathway shall connect the
development with the multi-use trail along the Western Canal. This
pathway shall be provided within an average 30-foot wide landscape
Page 1196
tract and constructed of decomposed stabilized granite, decorative
pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or similar alternative material.
(6) THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE A PEDESTRIAN ACCESS GATE
TO THE WESTERN CANAL ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERN
PROPERTY LINE AND A PEDESTRIAN GATE ACCESS ALONG BOTH
19TH AVENUE AND SOUTH MOUNTAIN AVENUE. THE PEDESTRIAN
GATES ACCESS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE INTERNAL
PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS BY ACCESSIBLE SIDEWALKS.
10. No more than 50 percent of the landscape areas within common areas or 10 percent
of the net development area whichever is less, should be planted in turf or high-water
use plants. Turf areas should be located only in the common open space areas,
including retention basins, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
This requirement does not apply to landscaping located within private yards on
individual lots.
11. The following minimum shall be provided and dispersed throughout the development,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department: OPEN SPACE AREAS
SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE
STAMPED NOVEMBER 24, 2021, JANUARY 6, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE
STIPULATIONS AND INCORPORATING THE FOLLOWING AMENITIES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARMTENT:
a. Tot lot with shade equipment;
b. Two picnic areas each with a barbeque grill, shade ramada and a picnic table;
c. Four benches or seating features; and
d. Garden amenity of no less than a combined 1,000 square feet in size.
12. All sidewalks along 19th Avenue shall be detached with a landscape strip located
between the sidewalk and back of curb following the most recent Cross Section of the
Street Classification Map and planted to the following standards, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
13. All sidewalks along South Mountain Avenue shall be detached with a minimum five-
foot wide landscape strip located between the sidewalk and back of curb and planted
to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.
Page 1197
a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
planted 25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings that provide shade to a
minimum 75 percent AT MATURITY.
b. Drought tolerant vegetation to achieve 75 percent live coverage AT MATURITY.
Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a pedestrian
environment.
14. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot wide multi-use trail easement (MUTE) along the
east side of 19th Avenue and construct a minimum 10-foot wide multi-use trail (MUT)
within the easement in accordance with the MAG supplemental detail, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department. The developer shall work with the Site
Planning section on an alternate design for this requirement through the technical
appeal process.
15. The developer shall dedicate minimum 50 feet of right-of-way and construct the east
side of 19th Avenue, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.
16. The developer shall provide the following dedications and construct the south half of
South Mountain Avenue in the following manner, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department:
a. Thirty feet of right-of-way between 19th Avenue and 17th Drive.
b. Forty-four feet of right-of-way east of 17th Drive extending to the eastern
boundary of the subject site.
17. The developer shall underground all existing overhead utility lines adjacent to the site.
18. The developer shall provide conduit and junction boxes at the southeast corner of 19th
Avenue and South Mountain Road for future traffic signal equipment, as approved by
the Street Transportation Department.
19. Existing irrigation facilities along 19th Avenue and South Mountain Avenue shall be
undergrounded and/or relocated outside of City right-of-way. Contact SRP to identify
existing land rights and establish appropriate process to relocate facility. Relocations
that require additional dedications or land transfer require completion prior to obtaining
plat and/or civil plan review approval.
20. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development with
paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, median islands, landscaping
and other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility standards.
21. Prior to final site plan approval, the property owner shall record documents that
disclose to purchasers of property within the development(s) the existence and
operational characteristics of agricultural and farming activities USES. THESE
DOCUMENTS MUST ADVISE PURCHASERS THAT, UNDER SECTION 3-112(E),
ARIZONA REVISED STATUES, THE CITY OF PHOENIX MAY NOT DECLARE AN
AGRICULTURAL OPERATION CONDUCTED ON FARMLAND TO BE A NUISANCE
IF THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY USE IS LAWFUL, CUSTOMARY, REASONABLE,
SAFE AND NECESSARY TO THE AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY. The form and content
Page 1198
of such documents shall be according to the templates and instructions provided which
have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. PRIOR TO FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE PROPERTY OWNER SHALL
RECORD DOCUMENTS THAT DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS OF PROPERTY
WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THE EXISTENCE AND OPERATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PHOENIX REGIONAL POLICE ACADEMY GUN
RANGE. THE FORM AND CONTENT OF SUCH DOCUMENTS SHALL BE
REVIEWED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO RECORDATION.
22. The property owner shall record documents that disclose the existence, and
23. operational characteristics of Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport to future owners or tenants of
the property. The form and content of such documents shall be according to the
templates and instructions provided which have been reviewed and approved by the
City Attorney.
23. The developer shall grant and record an avigation easement to the City of Phoenix
24. Aviation Department for the site, per the content and form prescribed by the City
Attorney prior to final site plan approval.
24. The developer shall provide a No Hazard Determination for the proposed development
25. from the FAA pursuant to the FAA’s Form-7460 obstruction analysis review process,
prior to construction permit approval, as per plans approved by the Planning and
Development Department.
25. In the event archeological materials are encountered during construction, the
26. developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archeologist, and allow time for the Archeology
Office to properly assess the materials.
27. THE DEVELOPER SHALL DEDICATE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND CONSTRUCT ONE
BUS STOP PAD ALONG NORTHBOUND 19TH AVENUE TOWARDS THE SOUTH
END OF THE SITE. THE BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING
TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10
FEET.
28. 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 1199
Attachment G
CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON:
APPLICATION NO/ GPA-SM-2-21-8 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION (Continued from opposition x applicant
12/2/2021) and
Z-31-21-8
(Continued from
12/2/2021)
Southeast corner of
19th Avenue and
South Mountain
Avenue
PC January 6, 2020 West South Mountain Avenue
APPEALED FROM: 2022 Phoenix, AZ 85041
PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC February 2, 2022
HEARING H. Jewel Clark
480-664-9436
hjewelclark@fastmail.com
CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:
Doesn't conform to 2015 General Plan for density and rural character. Splits
contiguously zoned S-1 & R1-18 community. Does not preserve/enhance
neighborhood character and certainty for existing community. Negotiations are
ongoing between neighborhood and developer and approval as submitted is
premature.
RECEIVED BY: Nayeli Sanchez RECEIVED ON: January 12, 2022
Alan Stephenson Vikki Cipolla-Murillo
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Samantha Keating
Racelle Escolar Paul M. Li
Stephanie Vasquez Village Planner
Diana Hernandez GIS
David Urbinato Applicant
Page 1200
Page 1201
Attachment H
From: Erin Hegedus
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola; Council District 8 PCC; Arizona Republic; Helen Jewel Clark; mijosic@fastmail.fm;
JoAnne Jensen; Dianne & Ted Olivo; steamboat332@msn.com; zach@zbrooks.com; Arizona Republic;
AZleatherking@aol.com; Rebekah Higginbotham
Subject: RE: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Date: Thursday, January 6, 2022 9:18:23 PM
Attachments: image001.png
I have to say I have not witnessed such obvious bias since I lived in the east coat.
Allowance for developers to speak
Commissioners asking developers how much time they needed and then offering citizens one
minute.
I am very concerned regarding our council members and the entre planning commission that seems
to support developers and have no respect to our citizens
Sent from Mail [go.microsoft.com] for Windows
From: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Sent: Thursday, January 6, 2022 4:53:10 PM
To: Enrique A Bojorquez-Gaxiola
Subject: City of Phoenix - Update on case Z-31-21-8
Good afternoon,
How are you? I hope you are doing well. I am reaching out in regards to case Z-31-21-8, scheduled
for tonight’s Planning Commission (PC) meeting, to inform you that the applicant has submitted an
updated site plan and landscape plan for this project. Staff has drafted an updated report
(Addendum B – please see attached) that reflects updates to the stipulations on the case that were
approved by the South Mountain Village Planning Committee in December of 2021.
This report will also be presented to the Planning Commission (PC) ahead of tonight’s meeting, in
addition to correspondence from the public received on this case.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this report.
Thank you very much,
Enrique Bojórquez Gaxiola
Planner III
Planning & Development Department
Long Range Planning Division
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Office: (602) 262-6949
Page 1202
Supporting documents
No supporting documents stored.
View on Agenda Online ↗
78 item(s)