← Back to meetings

Meeting phoenix-pdf-2022-02-16 complete

2022-02-16 · Formal Meeting

Items: 71

Formal Meeting

View on Agenda Online ↗

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

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




Page 11
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: February 16, 2022
From: Mayor Kate Gallego

Subject: BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS – APPOINTEES

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

Development Advisory Board

I recommend the following for appointment:

Monique Sermeno
Ms. Sermeno is the East Central Area Supervisor in the City of Phoenix Neighborhood
Services Department. She will serve as the ex-officio representative of that department.

Estrella Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:

Angelica Terrazas
Ms. Terrazas is the Government Affairs Director at Willetta Partners and a resident of
District 7. She fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

North Gateway Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:

Jennifer Krieger
Ms. Krieger is a substitute teacher and a resident of District 1. She fills a vacancy for a
partial term to expire November 19, 2022.




Page 12
Planning Commission

I recommend the following for appointment:

Marcia Busching
Ms. Busching is the owner of Busching Law PLC and a resident of District 8. She is
moving from the Village Planning Committee seat to replace Roberta Shank in a
Resident of Phoenix seat for a term to expire April 15, 2025.

Rio Vista Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Ann O’Brien recommends the following for appointment:

Jeff Riederer
Mr. Riederer is a Project Manager at Dallas Professional Painting and a resident of
District 2. He fills a vacancy for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

South Mountain Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Yassamin Ansari recommends the following for appointment:

Francisca Montoya
Ms. Montoya is the Director of Community Development and Special Projects at Raza
Development Fund and a resident of District 7. She fills a vacancy for a partial term to
expire November 19, 2022.

Tourism and Hospitality Advisory Board

Councilwoman Betty Guardado recommends the following for appointment:

Mathew Lockwood
Mr. Lockwood is the General Manager at Grand Canyon University Hotel. He fills a
vacancy to expire September 30, 2023.




Page 13



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Our Lady of Czestochowa Roman Catholic
Parish Phoenix

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

Summary

Applicant
Andrew Furga

Location
2828 W. Country Gables Drive
Council District: 1

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 26, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 8 p.m. / 2,500 attendees
Feb. 27, 2022 - 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. / 1,500 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 14



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Romano's Macaroni Grill #31178

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174806.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2949 W. Agua Fria Fwy.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 1

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 19, 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 15


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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Applicant is committed to upholding the highest standards for business and
maintaining compliance with applicable laws. Managers and staff will be trained in the
techniques of legal and responsible alcohol sales and service.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Romano's Macaroni Grill is a nationwide restaurant know for its Italian-American style
dishes in a casual family-friendly atmosphere. Applicant would like to continue to offer
guests 21 and over the opportunity to order alcoholic beverages as an incident to the
menu items they enjoy.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Romano's Macaroni Grill #31178
Liquor License Map - Romano's Macaroni Grill #31178

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




Page 16
Liquor License Data: ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL
#31178
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 3 3

Restaurant 12 6 6



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 79.11 121.23

Violent Crimes 9.21 11.06 21.23

*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 57 45

Total Violations 98 74




Page 17
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6146001 940 88 % 0% 9%

6146003 1301 56 % 0% 0%

6146004 840 3% 7% 16 %

6146005 1209 50 % 9% 3%

6146006 953 0% 29 % 0%

6164001 1022 80 % 28 % 4%

6164003 2380 0% 5% 9%

6164004 1106 100 % 0% 0%

6164005 576 73 % 38 % 9%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 18
Liquor License Map: ROMANO'S MACARONI GRILL #31178
2949 W AGUA FRIA FWY




Ü
Date: 12/30/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 19



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Ambassador Fine Cigars

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06073609.

Summary

Applicant
Vartan Seferian, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
10810 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 140
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

This request is for a new liquor license for a bar. 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. 27, 2022.

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

Other Active Liquor License Interest in Arizona
The ownership of this business has an interest in other active liquor license(s) in the
State of Arizona. This information is listed below and includes liquor license violations


Page 20

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.

Ambassador Fine Cigars (Series 7)
7545 W. Bell Road, Peoria
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix
Liquor license violations: None

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I am an owner and operator of Ambassador Fine Cigars located in Peoria. I will
continue to abide by all rules, regulations and Title 4 liquor laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This location has been open and operational for 7 years. I would like the ability to offer
my customers an adult beverage while enjoying a fine cigar."

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 - Ambassador Fine Cigars
Liquor License Map - Ambassador Fine Cigars

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




Page 21
Liquor License Data: AMBASSADOR FINE CIGARS
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Bar 6 2 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 2 2

Liquor Store 9 3 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 15 7


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 31.76 47.34

Violent Crimes 9.21 2.28 3.39

*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 15

Total Violations 98 19




Page 22
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032081 1605 97 % 10 % 12 %

1032082 1548 38 % 36 % 18 %

1032083 885 93 % 10 % 0%

1032091 804 74 % 0% 24 %

1032092 970 69 % 24 % 27 %

1050032 1980 98 % 12 % 10 %

1051012 1805 94 % 8% 7%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 23
Liquor License Map: AMBASSADOR FINE CIGARS
10810 N TATUM BLVD




Ü
Date: 1/4/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 24



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Good Time Smoke Beer & Wine

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 176497.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
12312 N. 32nd St.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 3

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. 28, 2022.

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

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

Page 25




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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Both owners have completed Title 4 Liquor Law Training. Strict policies will be place
to ensure all rules, laws, and regulations will be followed.”

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 an existing series 10 liquor license. We are applying for a license to
better facilitate a more convenient overall shopping experience for the community we
serve.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Good Time Smoke Beer & Wine
Liquor License Map - Good Time Smoke Beer & Wine

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




Page 26
Liquor License Data: GOOD TIME SMOKE BEER & WINE
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 4 4

Beer and Wine Bar 7 1 0

Liquor Store 9 2 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 6 5

Restaurant 12 4 2

Club 14 1 0


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 35.03 36.09

Violent Crimes 9.21 4.29 5.73

*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 57 79

Total Violations 98 128




Page 27
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1034001 1544 82 % 0% 6%

1035021 1498 61 % 5% 10 %

1035023 1511 71 % 2% 17 %

1035025 1744 70 % 0% 4%

1048021 941 84 % 0% 4%

1048022 1874 40 % 0% 8%

1049003 2131 84 % 6% 2%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 28
Liquor License Map: GOOD TIME SMOKE BEER & WINE
12312 N 32ND ST




Ü
Date: 1/4/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 29



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Vegan & Vine

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 176443.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
502 E. Thunderbird Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 3

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.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 27, 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 30




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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“ I am a successful entrepreneur and own other businesses. I will ensure that my
employees are trained in liquor law to avoid sales to intoxicated and or underage
customers. I will uphold all city, state and county laws and work with the neighborhood
associations to provide a safe and friendly environment to our clientele. Additionally, I
held a 'liquor - license' in Seattle, WA from 1998 - 2006 with zero infractions.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a unique restaurant selling vegan products and alcoholic beverages to
complement our food. The restaurant is adjacent to our vegan convenience store
providing products that are not typically available in big box stores. It is a one stop
shop concept where one can dine in and subsequently shop in the adjacent vegan
convenience store. All things 'Plant - Based' in one conveinent location!.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Vegan & Vine
Liquor License Map - Vegan & Vine

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




Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Liquor License Map: VEGAN VINE
502 E THUNDERBIRD RD




Ü
Date: 1/4/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 34



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Vegan & Vine

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 176434.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
502 E. Thunderbird Road
Zoning Classification: PSC
Council District: 3

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This location
requires a Use Permit to allow alcohol sales as an accessory use to a restaurant in the
PSC zoning district.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 27, 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 35

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 am a successful entrepreneur and own other businesses. I will ensure that my
employees are trained in liquor law to avoid sales to intoxicated and or underage
customers. I will uphold all city, state and county laws and work with the neighborhood
associations to provide a safe and friendly environment to our clientele. Additionally, I
held an active 'liquor - license' in Seattle, WA from 1998 - 2006 with zero infractions.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This is a unique restaurant selling vegan products and alcoholic beverages to
complement our food. The restaurant is adjacent to our vegan convenience store
providing products that are not typically available in big box stores. It is a one stop
shop concept where one can dine in and subsequently shop in the adjacent vegan
convenience store. All things 'Plant - Based' in one conveinent location!”

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 - Vegan & Vine
Liquor License Map - Vegan & Vine

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




Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Liquor License Map: VEGAN VINE
502 E THUNDERBIRD RD




Ü
Date: 1/4/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 39



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - 7- Eleven #21041H

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 174282.

Summary

Applicant
Ryan Anderson, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
4101 N. 27th Ave.
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 4

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. 16, 2022.

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

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

Page 40




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:
“7-Eleven, Inc. is a major convenience store retailer in the U.S. with thousands of
stores in many states, some of which are operated by corporate and some of which
are operated by franchisees. This store will operate as a corporate store. 7-Eleven,
Inc. has a strict, comprehensive, and successful training program and record regarding
alcohol sales both inside and outside of AZ. 7-Eleven, Inc. depends on its reputation
regarding responsible operation of its stores and takes liquor compliance very
seriously.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This store has operated with a series 10 liquor license for years. Its customers and
neighbors have grown accustomed to the one-stop shopping experience, and 7-Eleven
will now be operating this location as a corporate store with the intention of improving it
and making the best neighbor it can be."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - 7-Eleven #21041H
Liquor License Map - 7-Eleven #21041H

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




Page 41
Liquor License Data: 7-ELEVEN #21041H
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 1 1

Bar 6 4 0

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 17 7

Restaurant 12 5 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 173.54 203.39

Violent Crimes 9.21 59.76 93.41

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 181

Total Violations 97 287




Page 42
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1090011 1552 19 % 22 % 42 %

1090012 3369 0% 11 % 59 %

1090031 2380 23 % 26 % 52 %

1090032 1204 16 % 30 % 56 %

1090033 1600 22 % 13 % 68 %

1090034 583 5% 26 % 49 %

1091012 2067 85 % 10 % 30 %

1091022 2966 78 % 14 % 50 %

1169001 2535 66 % 12 % 50 %

1170002 1845 32 % 9% 34 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 43
Liquor License Map: 7-ELEVEN #21041H
4101 N 27TH AVE




Ü
Date: 12/28/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 44



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

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

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

Summary

Applicant
Sofia Vasquez Diaz

Location
7610 W. Indian School Road
Council District: 5

Function
Dance

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

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 45



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - SS Simon & Jude Roman Catholic Cathedral
Phoenix

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

Summary

Applicant
Phillip Lester

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

Function
Dinner

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

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 46



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Barro's Pizza

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 176091.

Summary

Applicant
Bruce Barro, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
6135 N. 35th Ave., Ste. 101
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 5

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. 26, 2022.

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

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


Page 47


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 21 restaurants all with Series 12 liquor licenses and have never had a citation
or problem with regards to serving alcohol.”

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 selling alcohol very seriously and adhere to all laws & regulations.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Barro's Pizza
Liquor License Map - Barro's Pizza

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




Page 48
Liquor License Data: BARRO'S PIZZA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 2 0

Liquor Store 9 5 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 1

Restaurant 12 8 6


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 164.86 274.73

Violent Crimes 9.21 29.64 34.71

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 57 122

Total Violations 98 223




Page 49
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1069002 2629 71 % 5% 22 %

1069003 1767 77 % 0% 14 %

1069004 2444 60 % 3% 27 %

1070001 1623 80 % 6% 32 %

1070002 1741 70 % 23 % 18 %

1071012 2416 62 % 10 % 43 %

1072021 3137 64 % 9% 29 %

1072022 2085 62 % 5% 22 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 50
Liquor License Map: BARRO'S PIZZA
6135 N 35TH AVE




Ü
Date: 1/6/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 51



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Madison District Educational Foundation, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Ari Levin

Location
5601 N. 16th St.
Council District: 6

Function
Cultural Celebration

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
May 5, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. / 900 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 52



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Madison District Educational Foundation, Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Ari Levin

Location
5601 N. 16th St.
Council District: 6

Function
Dance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 10, 2022 - 6 p.m. to 8:45 p.m. / 900 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 53



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - United Phoenix Firefighters Emerald Society,
Inc.

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

Summary

Applicant
Joseph Cantelme

Location
18 W. Monroe St.
Council District: 7

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 17, 2022 - 8 a.m. to 2 a.m. / 1,200 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 54



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - Special Event - Trees Matter

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

Summary

Applicant
Aimee Esposito

Location
907 N. 5th St.
Council District: 8

Function
Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
April 15, 2022 - 4:20 p.m. to Midnight / 5,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 55



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquor License - R & F Liquor

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070729.

Summary

Applicant
Steve Delly, 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 liquor store. This
location was previously licensed for liquor sales and may currently operate with an
interim permit.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Feb. 25, 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 56




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:
“This location has been owned and operated by our family for 24 years. We have
always followed Arizona liquor laws and have never had any problems. We have
proven ourselves to be conscience business owners.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Being in business a this location for so long, our neighbors and the local community
have become our regular patrons. Our neighbors know we operate a reputable
business with fair prices.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - R & F Liquor
Liquor License Map - R & F Liquor

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




Page 57
Liquor License Data: R & F LIQUOR
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 5 3

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 57 137

Total Violations 98 187




Page 58
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 59
Liquor License Map: R & F LIQUOR
4727 E SOUTHERN AVE




Ü
Date: 12/30/2021
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 - Golden Margarita

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 175908.

Summary

Applicant
Jeffrey Miller, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
330 E. Roosevelt St.
Zoning Classification: DTC - East Evan Churchill
Council District: 8

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

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

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

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


Page 61


Public Opinion
Two letters protesting the issuance of this license have been received and are on file in
the Office of the City Clerk. The letters are from local residents. They feel that the
Golden Margarita has created an unsafe environment for the community with a history
of noise complaints and shooting incidents at the location. They feel the applicant is
not qualified or able to manage a liquor license.

Two letters supporting the issuance of this license have been received and are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk. The letters are from a local resident and a business
owner who feel the Golden Margarita brings growth and is a great addition to the
neighborhood that provides great service.

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 operating this establishment since 2020. Am filing under a new LLC. I will
continue to abide by Title 4 laws and ensure my employees are trained in Title 4 liquor
law training.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I would like to offer my patrons the choice of having an adult beverage while enjoying
a bite to eat while in the art district of downtown."

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends disapproval of this application based on Finance and Police
Department recommendations for disapproval. The Police Department disapproval is
based on the applicants history of liquor violations, prior history of failing to meet the
percentage of food sales required for a restaurant license, currently operating more
like a bar instead of a restaurant, reported violence at the establishment, and
community noise complaints. Additionally, the current applicant was previously
recommended for denial for this location by the City Council at the July 1, 2021 Formal
Meeting. The applicant has not demonstrated the capability, qualifications and
reliability to hold and control a liquor license.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Golden Margarita


Page 62

Liquor License Map - Golden Margarita
Liquor License Police Department Recommendation - Golden Margarita

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




Page 63
Liquor License Data: GOLDEN MARGARITA
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Microbrewery 3 4 2

Government 5 8 4

Bar 6 45 13

Beer and Wine Bar 7 16 7

Liquor Store 9 4 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 11 4

Hotel 11 8 4

Restaurant 12 105 43

Club 14 2 0



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 48.77 168.55 256.36

Violent Crimes 9.21 40.87 50.95

*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 57 104

Total Violations 97 180




Page 64
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1118004 671 62 % 6% 6%

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 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 65
Liquor License Map: GOLDEN MARGARITA
330 E ROOSEVELT ST




Ü
Date: 12/28/2021
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 66
Page 67
Page 68




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-48322) (Items 18-29)
Ordinance S-48322 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.

18 Settlement of Claim(s) Arangure v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $3,000,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in
Arangure v. City of Phoenix, 18-1368-002, AU, BI, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement of bodily injury claim arising from a motor vehicle accident on
April 7, 2019, involving the Fire Department.

19 Settlement of Claim(s) Parvar v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of up to $40,000.00 in settlement of claim(s) in Parvar
v. City of Phoenix, 20-1163-001, AU, BI, PD, for the Finance Department
pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a settlement of bodily
injury and property damage claim arising from a motor vehicle accident on
April 9, 2021, involving the Police Department.

20 Settlement of Claim(s) Salt River Pima Indian
Community v. City of Phoenix
To make payment of $7,000,000 in settlement of claim(s) in Salt River
Pima Indian Community vs. City of Phoenix, 20-018858, for the Water
Services Department from project WS85500455. This is a settlement of
an alleged trespassing of a water line at 67th and Southern avenues,
involving the Water Services Department.



Page 69


21 TransUnion Risk and Alternative Data Solutions, Inc.
For $25,000.00 in payment authority to purchase TransUnion's TLOxp
Online Investigative Services for the Police Department. The services
include access to an online investigative research database of public and
proprietary information. TLOxp's streamlined processes provide quick
turnaround of requested information. The information available in this
database is vital to the role and mission of the Police Department to
provide life safety efforts.

22 Recon Robotics
For $34,419.00 in payment authority to purchase two Throwbot 2 Kits,
each containing a Throwbot 2 Robot (TB2) and an Operator Control Unit
3, for the Police Department's Crime Impact Unit's Fugitive Apprehension
Investigations Detail. The TB2 is an updated robot equipped with a more
precise camera and audio listening capabilities. The system enhances
safety for the public and minimizes the risk of a critical incident with
suspects. The TB2 affords the opportunity to accomplish multiple tasks
within a tactical operation while physically displacing officers from inside a
structure or hazardous area, thereby increasing the safety of all those
involved. The camera system of the TB2 allows the operator to peer into
locations that otherwise would require an officer to physically inspect
inside a structure, such as bedrooms, attic/crawl spaces, and under beds.

23 Hale Outdoor Products, LLC doing business as
MotoShot Target Systems
For $27,432.00 in payment authority to purchase a MotoShot Target Elite,
a moving target training system and accessories for the Police
Department. A MotoShot Target Elite includes an Adaptable Platform
(AP), fall response upgrades for Motoshot Robots, MotoMan
three-dimensional torso with arms, and a decision-making target
bi-directional target turner dedicated toggle. The MotoShot Target Elite
and accessories are designed for close-quarter tactical and
indoor-outdoor moving target training. The system will be used to train,
prepare, and engage officers to be proficient in a real-time shooting of
moving targets in different real-life environments and live firing scenarios.
Additionally, the purchase of the MotoShot Elite AP will enhance officer
shooting proficiency, decision-making, and public safety. Currently, the


Page 70

Firearms Training Detail does not have a target system capable of
providing portable and modular ballistic cover to train the officers.

24 Police Ordnance Company, Inc
For $17,600.00 in additional payment authority for Contract 147152 for
ARWEN 37T Launchers and Accessories for the Police Department. The
equipment is a critical part of the Police Department's effort to provide life
safety services to the public and for use in critical incidents and on
complicated scenes. Funds are required to make additional purchases for
ammunition and accessories for this system, that are needed on a regular
basis and are only available from the Police Ordnance Company. The
initial contract amount of $60,000.00 was underestimated and thus
necessitating more funds to be added to the contract.

25 DJ Walworth Enterprises, Inc. doing business as
Interstate Batteries of Arizona
For $25,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract, entered on or
about Feb. 23, 2022, for a term of five years for small equipment
batteries for the Parks and Recreation Department. The batteries are
used for various small equipment utilized daily, such as gators, mowers,
carts, and sweepers. In addition, the equipment is used to maintain
41,000 acres of desert parks and mountain preserve land with more than
200 miles of trails, 185 parks, 32 community and recreation centers, eight
golf courses, and street landscapes throughout the City. Furthermore, the
contract supports the Phoenix Strategic Plan to ensure Phoenix residents
have quality parks and open space.

26 City of Glendale
For $27,273.00 in payment authority for the Office of Government
Relations and the Aviation Department to remit the City of Phoenix's
portion of the shared cost under the Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Claldwell
& Berkowitz agreement. The agreement provides West Valley Partner
Communities comprehensive federal legislative consulting services to
protect and enhance Luke Air Force Base.

27 National Association of Housing and Redevelopment
Officials
For $17,007.00 in payment authority for National Association of Housing


Page 71

and Redevelopment Officials (NAHRO) annual membership for the
Housing Department. NAHRO provides important support through training,
advocacy, networking, and best practices. Membership ensures the City
is informed about proposed regulatory changes that may impact the
financial and operational sustainability of the City's Housing Department,
as well as legislative updates to keep staff informed in advance of action
being taken. The membership is paid by federal funds with no impact to
the General Fund.

28 Ralph Andersen & Associates
For $35,000.00 in payment authority for a new contract with Ralph
Andersen & Associates, to be entered into on or about March 1, 2022, for
a term of two years for executive recruitment and consulting services for
the Human Resources Department. The services are needed to provide
executive-level recruitment services for an Assistant Chief Information
Officer position in the Information Technology Services Department. The
executive search includes writing recruitment marketing materials,
advertising, conducting applicant searches, identifying a diverse applicant
pool, coordinating interviews, and facilitating negotiations and offer.

29 Acrolect Solutions, LLC dba Endurance Group
For $36,895.00 in payment authority for hostage rescue training for the
Special Assignments Unit (SAU) for the Police Department. The training
course will focus on hostage rescue and will include numerous techniques
including entry tactics, threat priorities, multi-room and multi-floor
sequences, distraction devices, and simultaneous entry of multiple breach
points and rapid decision making. Hostage rescue training is a core
function of the SAU and is imperative to promote the safety of officers
and citizens. Funding for this course is available in the Police
Department's budget.




Page 72



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Proposed 27th Avenue and Baseline Road Annexation (Ordinance S-48349)

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
of Phoenix, designated as the 27th Avenue and Baseline 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 Francisco M. Badilla with Badilla and Associates
Consulting Engineers L.L.C, 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 Oct. 6, 2021, 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 parcel 105-88-
020V, located at 7416 S. 27th Avenue (Attachment A). The annexation area is
approximately 2.25 acres (0.0035 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is three
individuals.
Council District: 8

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




Page 73
ATTACHMENT A




Page 74



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance S-47731 for Acquisition of Real Property for Cholla Tank 4M-
B2 Pipeline Improvements (Ordinance S-48331)

Request the City Council to amend Ordinance S-47731 to acquire additional parcels
for Cholla Tank 4M-B2 Pipeline improvements.

Summary
Ordinance S-47731 authorized acquisition for Cholla Tank 4M-B2 Pipeline
improvements. It is necessary to acquire additional real property from parcels that
were not originally identified to accommodate project and construction needs. All other
conditions and stipulations previously stated in the above referenced ordinance will
remain the same.

The additional parcels impacted by this project are identified in Attachment A.

Financial Impact
Funding for acquisition is available in the Water Services Department's Capital
Improvement Program budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Acquisition of Real Property for Cholla Tank 4M-B2 Pipeline
Improvements (Ordinance S-47731) on June 23, 2021.

Location
Near East Cholla Lane and East Vista Drive and Invergordon Road.
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
and Finance departments.




Page 75
Attachment A
Property Identification



The following improved and/or unimproved parcels affected by acquisition and
included in this request are identified by the Maricopa County Assessor’s parcel
number (APN) and the address or location.

APN Address / Location
172-12-155 5149 N. Ascent Drive
172-12-156 5145 N. Ascent Drive
172-12-157 5141 N. Ascent Drive
172-12-158 5137 N. Ascent Drive
172-12-159 5133 N. Ascent Drive




Page 76



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Acceptance and Dedication of Right-of-Way Abandoned by Arizona Department
of Transportation Resolutions 2022-01-A-008, 2021-11-A-036 and 2021-02-A-006
(Ordinance S-48350)

Request for the City Council to accept and dedicate to public use right-of-way
abandoned by Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) Resolutions 2022-01-A-
008, 2021-11-A-036 and 2021-02-A-006; further ordering the ordinance recorded.

Summary
The right-of-way is no longer needed by ADOT for state transportation purposes, and
the City will accept jurisdiction, ownership and maintenance responsibilities, subject to
appurtenant, existing access control, which shall remain intact and under ADOT
control. Costs of the additional maintenance are not significant.

Maps depicting the right-of-way can be found in Attachment A. The ADOT
Resolutions will be recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder.

Location
2022-01-A-008 is located along West Dunlap and North 25th avenues, east of
Interstate 17.
Council District: 5

2021-11-A-036 is located along North 16th Street between Culver and Willetta streets,
north of Interstate 10.
Council District: 8

2021-02-A-006 is located along the Roosevelt Street alignment between North 41st
and North 42nd streets, south of State Route 202.
Council District: 8

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




Page 77
$77$&+0(17$




3DJHRI
Page 78
$77$&+0(17$




3DJHRI
Page 79
$77$&+0(17$




3DJHRI
Page 80



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Pest Control Services - Requirements Contract - Coop 22-050 (Ordinance S-
48328)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a cooperative
participating agreement with Orkin, LLC to procure pest control services for the
Aviation and Housing departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed
$1,226,000.

Summary
The Aviation and the Housing Departments request to use a cooperative agreement
with Orkin, LLC to provide pest control services for the City's airports and the City's
large apartment buildings and structures. Orkin, LLC will provide general pest control
treatment, cockroach treatment, mosquito treatment, rodent control, bed bug
inspection and treatment, bee, wasp, and hornet removal, termite inspection and
control, and bird and bat management. These services are necessary for the health
and safety of City staff and the public, as well as to maintain compliance with local and
federal laws and requirements.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, a participating agreement is
required when the City uses a cooperative agreement from another public agency. A
cooperative contract was established by Sourcewell under solicitation number 042821.
The contract was awarded through competitive processes consistent with the City's
procurement processes, as set forth in the Phoenix City Code, Chapter 43.

The Sourcewell contract covers the purchase of pest control services as required by
the Aviation and Housing departments. The contract was awarded on June 18, 2021.
The use of this cooperative agreement will provide the City national discounts on these
products.

Upon City Council approval of this item, a purchasing agreement(s) incorporating the
City’s terms and conditions will be fully executed between the referenced vendor and
the City.



Page 81

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the cooperative participating
agreement with Orkin, LLC be accepted.

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

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1,226,000.

Funding is available in the Aviation and Housing departments’ budgets.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Gina Montes,
and the Aviation and Housing departments.




Page 82



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Custodial Services (Police and Human Services Department Locations) Contract
- Amendment (Ordinance S-48334)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and allow additional
expenditures under Contract 144491 and 144492 with ISS Facility Services and Allied
Universal Janitorial Services, respectively, to provide custodial services for the City of
Phoenix Police and Human Services departments. Further request authorization for
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $808,678.

Summary
These contracts provide the City of Phoenix Police and Human Services Departments
with all the necessary trained personnel, supervision, scheduling, equipment, tools,
and other accessories required to perform custodial services for the general cleaning
of the interiors and exteriors of certain Police Department and Human Services
Department facilities. 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 the COVID-19 pandemic. This contract extension will allow
for a new procurement to be completed without a lapse in services.

Contract Term
Upon approval, the term of both contracts will be extended through July 1, 2022.
Without extension, both contracts would terminate after February 28, 2022.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $808,678 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contracts will not exceed $7,771,635. Funds are available in the Police and Human
Services Departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Contracts 144491 and 144492 to provide custodial services (Ordinance S-43169)
on Jan. 25, 2017;
· Contracts 144491 and 144492 - Payment Authority (Ordinance S-46875 ) on Aug.



Page 83

26, 2020; and
· Contract 144492 - Amendment (Ordinance S-47156) on Dec. 2, 2020.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Gina
Montes, and the Police and Human Services Departments.




Page 84



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Evofinder System Warranty and Maintenance- Requirements Contract EXC 22-
058 (Ordinance S-48340)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Leeds Precision Instruments, Inc. to purchase the Evofinder system warranty and
maintenance for the Police Department. Further request authorization for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The aggregate contract value will
not exceed $156,500.

Summary
This contract will provide the Police Department with the extended warranty necessary
to guarantee the Evofinder system is always maintained and running at maximum
capacity.The extended warranty will provide maintenance services including necessary
software updates, system hardware service, and repair of the Evofinder 3D digital
bullet comparison scope system used by the Laboratory Services Bureau. The
Evofinder Scanner is a 3D digital bullet comparison scope system that aids in the
comparison of forensic evidence.

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

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
a result of an approved Determination Memo which cited Leeds Precision Instruments
Inc. as the only vendor that can provide the Evofinder warranty and maintenance.

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the contract with Leeds Precision
Instruments, Inc. be accepted.

Contract Term
The five-year contract term will begin on or about May 27, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $156,500 and funds are available in the
Police Department’s budget.


Page 85


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




Page 86



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Risk Management Information System and Ancillary Services - Requirement
Contract - RFA 14-035 (Ordinance S-48345)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend and continue using
Ordinance S-43822 under Contract 138020 with Riskonnect Clearsight, LLC for the
purchase of risk management information services for the Finance Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed.

Summary
This contract provides the Risk Management division of the Finance Department a
web-based risk management information system with secure data storage, client
service and system maintenance and also includes a key bill-payment interface that is
linked to the Law Department’s information system and a jointly-developed transaction
interface with SAP. This extension will allow additional time to establish a new
agreement for this service.

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

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

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of this contract will not exceed $1,325,000.00 and no additional
funds are needed for the extension. Funding is available in the Finance Department's
budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The contract was originally approved by City Council on March 19, 2014; supplemental
actions include Ordinance S-43822 approved on Sept. 6, 2017.

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



Page 87



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Korn Ferry Leadership Architect Library (Ordinance S-48342)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Korn Ferry (US) to obtain Leadership Architect Library training materials to be used in
city wide leadership training curriculums for five years beginning on or about Feb. 16,
2022. The aggregate value of the contract shall not exceed $350,000. Further request
authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
This contract is needed to obtain hard copy and electronic books and other materials
which are used in the Human Resources Organization Development’s Engaging
Leader, Inspiring Leader and Emerging Leader training curriculums. These citywide
classes provide supervisors and managers with an electronic and hard copy library of
job-related, ability-based competencies. The library of competencies provides the tools
necessary to identify which leadership competencies are most highly aligned with
success across City leadership and within specific positions. Predefined job-related
competences provide a framework of proficiency and a common language at all levels
of the organization. The Leadership Architect Library of competencies has been the
fundamental building block that Organizational Development has used to develop
leadership curriculums for several years. Continued use provides continuity in
leadership development and ensures curriculum is aligned with business needs.

The Water Services Department will be using this contract to purchase hard copy and
electronic books and other materials for a total of $25,000 in the five-year period.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of an approved Determination Memo citing Korn Ferry (US) as a special
circumstance without competition, as they are the only producer of this material.

Contract Term
The five-year contract shall begin on or about Feb. 16, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate five-year contract value will not exceed $350,000. Funds are available


Page 88

in the Human Resources Department's budget for $325,000, and funds are available in
the Water Services Department for $25,000.

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




Page 89



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Employee Assistance Program and Elder Care Services (Ordinance S-48354)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
ComPsych Corporation to provide an Employee Assistance Program, elder care
services, and Public Safety traumatic event counseling in an amount not to exceed
$5,441,465 for a five-year period. Further request authorization for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Employee Assistance Program and Elder Care Services agreement is needed to
provide a broad range of services to full-time City employees and their household
members including 12 free counseling sessions for any issue of personal concern;
elder care referrals and counseling; onsite critical incident stress debriefings;
supervisor referrals; employee training, and, substance abuse professional services.
City retirees also receive elder care services.

Public Safety personnel from the Police and Fire Departments in certain non-sworn
classifications that are identified with duties that expose them to the same traumatic
events as sworn personnel, are eligible to receive 36 sessions of traumatic event
counseling per event. Traumatic event counseling for Police and Fire Department
Public Safety personnel is required by Arizona law effective August 2018. The City
expanded these benefits to include specific non-sworn classifications.

Procurement Information
RFP HR 21-004 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10.
The Human Resources Department received two proposals. The Notice of Solicitation
was emailed to 111 vendors registered in ProcurePHX.

The offers were scored on the following criteria: Qualifications and Experience (325
points), Method of Approach (425 points) and Price (250 points). Evaluation occurred
by a six-person panel. The evaluation committee determined that one offer was within
the competitive range. The competitive offeror submitted a Best and Final Offer
(BAFO). After reviewing the BAFO response, it was the consensus of the evaluation
committee to recommend awarding the contract to ComPsych Corporation.



Page 90

The scores were as follows:
· ComPsych Corporation: 791.22
· Magellan Healthcare, Inc.: 466.80
The Acting Human Resources Director recommends the offer from ComPsych
Corporation be accepted as the highest scored, responsive, and responsible offeror.

Contract Term
The five-year contract shall begin on or about April 1, 2022.

Financial Impact
The aggregate five-year contract value for these services shall not exceed $5,441,465.
For Employee Assistance Program and Elder Care Services, $852,138 in aggregate is
available in the Human Resources Department's budget, and $474,842 in aggregate
is available in the Police Department's budget. For Public Safety traumatic event
counseling, $880,615 in aggregate is available in the Police Department's budget, and
$3,233,870 in aggregate is available in the Fire Department's budget.

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




Page 91



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Amend Contract to Allow for Pass-Through American Rescue Plan
Act Funds and Increase the Landlord Incentive Program Payment Amount
(Ordinance S-48358)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 147189
with Quadel Consulting and Training (Quadel) to add contract authority of $1 million in
pass-through funding from the City of Phoenix-allocated American Rescue Plan Act
(ARPA) funds for the Housing Department's Landlord Incentive Program, and
authorize increasing the Landlord Incentive Program payment amount from $500 to
$2,000 per incentive, not to exceed the previously allocated $1 million ARPA funding.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, on Aug. 26, 2020, City Council authorized utilizing
federal CARES Act funding to initially launch the Landlord Incentive Program to help
combat the shrinking number of units and fewer affordable housing opportunities for
Phoenix Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) holders. The program incentivizes
Phoenix landlords to make their properties available to HCV holders by offering
landlords a one-time $500 payment for executing a Section 8 Housing Assistance
Payment (HAP) contract. Due to the program's success, on Sept. 7, 2021, the City
Council approved $1 million of the first tranche of the City's allocation of ARPA funding
to replenish the funds for the Landlord Incentive Program at $500 per incentive
payment.

On Jan. 26, 2022, at the request of the Economic Development and Equity (EDE)
Subcommittee, the Housing Department presented disbursement rates for three
varying payment amounts should the incentive payment be increased to $1,000,
$1,500, and $2,000, to fully expend the $1 million at a higher rate (Attachment A).
The EDE Subcommittee discussed the options and the fact that increasing the
payment amount would further incentivize landlords to join the program or make
additional units available to voucher holders to help sustain/increase the affordable
housing stock options in the community.

Quadel is the current administrator of the City's Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher


Page 92

program and manages the Landlord Incentive Program. Authorization to amend the
Contract allows for the City-allocated ARPA funding as a pass through to landlords for
the incentive program.

Financial Impact
Funding is available through the City’s allocation of ARPA funding, $1 million of the first
tranche approved for the Housing Department's Landlord Incentive Program. There is
no impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
· On March 21, 2018, City Council approved awarding Quadel Contract 147189-0,
per Ordinance S-44361.
· On Aug. 26, 2020, City Council approved $500,000 of federal CARES Act funding to
launch the Landlord Incentive Program, per Ordinance S-46887.
· On Sept. 7, 2021, City Council approved $1 million of City-allocated ARPA funding
to continue the Landlord Incentive Program, at the City Council Policy Session.
· On Jan. 26, 2022, the Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee discussed
and gave direction to increase the Landlord Incentive Program payment amount
from $500 to $2,000. The item was posted for information and discussion only. No
formal action was taken.

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




Page 93
Attachment A


Landlord Incentive Program
$1 Million ARPA Funding
Disbursement Rate Options

Current Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Amount Per Incentive
Payment $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000

Projected Disbursement 24 Months 11 Months 7 Months 5 Months
Timeline Oct. 2021 - Oct. 2023 Jan. 2022 - Dec. 2022 Jan. 2022 - Aug. 2022 Jan. 2022 - June 2022
Number of Payments /
Units Remaining 1,807 904 602 452




Page 94



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Homeless and Victim Services Contracts - Amendments (Ordinance S-48335)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
agreements with: Chicanos Por La Causa Contract 147432; Community Bridges, Inc.
Rapid Rehousing Contract 147511; Native American Connections, Inc. Contract
147431; Southwest Behavioral Health Services, Inc. Contract 147433; and Arizona
Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence Contract 147434 to extend the term
and allow additional expenditures for homeless and victim services. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the
contracts. The aggregate value of the contracts will not exceed $865,637 during a one-
year extension period.

Summary
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Human Services Department (HSD) has
been focused on developing, establishing and executing emergency services contracts
to support residents who have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dedication of resources to the emergency services contracts meant staff was unable
to provide the necessary time to develop the procurement for the homeless and victim
services. As such, HSD is requesting to extend the existing contracts for one year to
conduct a new procurement for these services. The procurement process may take
from six months to a year, depending on the complexity of the services needed. This
extension would provide HSD staff sufficient time to conduct the procurement process.

The City is currently contracted with the following vendors for the services identified
below:

Victim Services
Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence - $200,000
This contract provides oversight, coordination, and operation of a 24-hour hot line for
emergency shelter screening and housing vouchers assistance for individuals and
families experiencing domestic violence, sexual violence, or sex trafficking in Maricopa
County.

Emergency Crisis Shelter for Families
Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. - $166,818


Page 95

This contract provides emergency shelter operations and services for families
identified by the City of Phoenix Police, Fire, and Human Services departments.

Rapid Rehousing Bridge Support for Individuals Moving from Homelessness to
Permanent Housing
Community Bridges, Inc. - $174,665
This contract provides bridge support for individuals moving from unsheltered
homelessness to permanent housing.

Rapid Rehousing Support Services for Unaccompanied Youth
Native American Connections, Inc. - $97,650
This contract provides rapid rehousing support services for unaccompanied youth.

Navigation and Wrap Around Services for Justice Involved Individuals Experiencing
Homelessness
Southwest Behavioral Health - $226,504
This contract provides navigation and support to persons charged in Phoenix
Municipal Court with repeat misdemeanor offenses related to their homelessness.

Contract Term
The term of the extension will be July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Aggregate expenditures will not exceed $865,637 during the extension period of the
contracts. Funds are available from a combination of Emergency Solutions and
Community Development Block grants, and City of Phoenix General Funds upon
annual budget approval.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 2, 2018, the City Council approved the initial contracts for Arizona Coalition to
End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Chicanos Por La Causa, CBI-Rapid Rehousing,
Native American Connections, Inc., and Southwest Behavioral Health with Ordinance
S-44540.

On May 15, 2019, the City Council approved exercising the extension options for
Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Chicanos Por La Causa, CBI-
Rapid Rehousing, Native American Connections, Inc., and Southwest Behavioral
Health through June 30, 2021; and added additional funding to Southwest Behavioral
Health with Ordinance S-45647.

On Nov. 4, 2020, the City Council authorized a contract extension for Arizona Coalition


Page 96

to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, Chicanos Por La Causa, CBI-Rapid Rehousing,
Native American Connections, Inc., and Southwest Behavioral Health through June 30,
2022, with Ordinance S-47035.

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




Page 97



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Veteran Navigation and Coordination Services Contract - Amendment
(Ordinance S-48336)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
an agreement with Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI) Contract 143959 to extend the term
for an additional year and approve additional funding to this vendor to provide veteran
navigation and coordination services. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the contract. Expenditures will not
exceed $125,000 during the extension period. Funds are available in the General
Funds upon annual budget approval.

Summary
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Human Services Department (HSD) has
been focused on developing, establishing and executing emergency services contracts
to support residents who have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dedication of resources to the emergency services contracts meant staff was unable
to provide the necessary time to develop the procurement for Veteran navigation and
coordination services. As such, HSD is requesting to extend the existing contract for
one year to conduct a new procurement for these services. The procurement process
may take from six months to a year, depending on the complexity of the services
needed. This extension would provide HSD staff sufficient time to conduct the
procurement process.

The City’s current contract with CBI supports full-time navigators who work to engage
and connect homeless Veterans to permanent housing. It also supports coordination
services to include management and prioritization of a regional Veterans By-Name List
to ensure the most vulnerable Veterans are prioritized for service.

Contract Term
The extended contract term will be July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $125,000 during the extension period of the contract.
Funds are available in the General Fund upon annual budget approval.



Page 98

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Nov. 3, 2016, the City Council authorized staff to contract with CBI for Veteran
navigation and coordination services with Ordinance S-42987.

On June 5, 2019, the City Council authorized exercising the remaining contract
extension options through Jun. 30, 2021, with Ordinance S-45713.

On Nov. 4, 2020, the City Council authorized a contract extension through June 30,
2022, with Ordinance S-47035.

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




Page 99



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Outreach and Engagement for Persons Experiencing Homelessness Contract -
Amendment (Ordinance S-48337)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
an agreement with Community Bridges, Inc. Contract 145545 to extend the term for an
additional year and approve funding for this vendor to continue to provide outreach
and engagement services for individuals experiencing homelessness through the
extended term. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item for the life of the contract. The total value of the contract extension
will not exceed $1,175,000 Funding is contingent upon the City's annual Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation from the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), the approval of the HUD Annual Action Plan, and the
Phoenix City Council annual budget adoption.

Summary
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Human Services Department (HSD) has
been focused on developing, establishing and executing emergency services contracts
to support residents who have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Dedication of resources to the emergency services contracts meant staff was unable
to provide the necessary time to develop the procurement for outreach and
engagement for individuals experiencing homelessness. As such, HSD is requesting to
extend the existing contract for one year to conduct a new procurement for these
services. The procurement process may take from six months to a year, depending on
the complexity of the services needed. This extension would provide HSD staff
sufficient time to conduct the procurement process.

The City’s current contract with CBI supports navigation teams who assist persons
experiencing homelessness and further supports the PHX C.A.R.E.S. program.

Contract Term
The extended contract term will be July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $1,175,000 during the extension period of the contract.
Funding is contingent upon the City's annual CDBG allocation from HUD, the approval


Page 100

of the HUD Annual Action Plan and the Phoenix City Council annual budget adoption.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On June 7, 2017, the City Council authorized staff to contract with Community Bridges,
Inc. for outreach and engagement for person experiencing homelessness with
Ordinance S-43631.

On Nov. 29, 2017, the City Council authorized additional funds be added to the
contract with Ordinance S-44114.

On June 6, 2018, the City Council authorized additional funds be added to the contract
with Ordinance S-44630.

On Oct. 21, 2020, the City Council authorized an administrative correction to
Ordinances S-44114 and S-44630 to reflect the correct annual funding allocation with
Ordinance S-46993.

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




Page 101



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Starfish Place for Victims of Human Trafficking Supportive Services
Contract - Amendment (Ordinance S-48338)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Contract 145543
with Community Bridges, Inc. (CBI) to extend the term of the contract for one
additional year and approve funding for this vendor to continue to provide contracted
services through the extended term. The contract amount will not exceed $150,000
during the extension period, for a total contract amount not to exceed $900,000.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item
for the life of the contract. Funds are available through the City's federal Community
Development Block Grant allocation from the United States Department of Housing
and Urban Development. There is no impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The City contracts with CBI to provide supportive services at Phoenix Starfish Place.
Under the contract, CBI provides professional, on-site staff who provide trauma
informed case management services to victims of human trafficking. The program
helps residents achieve housing stabilization and learn independent living skills. The
current contract expires June 30, 2022.

Since March 2020, the Human Services Department (HSD) has been focused on the
City’s COVID-19 pandemic response. In this effort, staff members deferred previously
established work plans and instead focused on developing and executing a variety of
emergency pandemic response initiatives. Issuing a procurement for supportive
services at Phoenix Starfish Place was one of several work plan items deferred during
the pandemic. To continue to provide supportive services at Phoenix Starfish Place,
HSD now requests authorization to extend the existing contract for a period of one
year. Extending the current contract will allow HSD the time needed for staff to issue a
competitive and thorough procurement for these services.

Contract Term
The extended contract term will begin July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Expenditures will not exceed $150,000 during the extension period of the contract.


Page 102

Funds are available from the Community Development Block Grant. There is no
impact to the General Fund.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On May 31, 2017, the City Council authorized staff to contract with Community
Bridges, Inc. for victims of human trafficking at Phoenix Starfish Place with Ordinance
S-43586.

Location
Council District: 3

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




Page 103



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Head Start Birth to Five Program Interpreter Services Qualified Vendors List -
RFQu-21-EDU-53 (Ordinance S-48344)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve a Qualified
Vendors List (QVL) and enter into agreements with eligible contractors to provide
interpreter services for the Head Start Birth to Five Program. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item for the life of the
contracts. The aggregate value of all agreements will not exceed $250,000 over the
life of the QVL.

Summary
The Early Head Start Home-Based Program provides family-centered services for low-
income families with very young children. The program is designed to promote the
development of the children and enable parents to fulfill their role as their child's
primary teacher and move toward self-sufficiency. Enrolled families participate in 90-
minute weekly home visits, monthly parent education opportunities and biweekly
socialization events. The primary language of many of the participants is a language
other than English, requiring the use of interpreters. The interpreters play a vital role in
supporting the Early Head Start staff and the parents to ensure maximum benefit from
the program.

Services will be delivered face-to-face in the participant's home, virtually or over the
phone. The home visits, socialization sites, and parent educational opportunities are
located within the City of Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five program boundaries,
including the following school districts: Deer Valley; Washington; Isaac; Alhambra;
Cartwright; Fowler; Pendergast; and Riverside.

The Qualified Vendor List is meant to identify highly qualified professionals with the
certification, training and experience to provide the required interpreter services for
Early Head Start Home-Based families.

Procurement Information
On Nov. 5, 2021, RFQu-21-EDU-53 for Head Start Birth to Five Program Interpreter
Services was issued to solicit qualified professionals for interpreter services. The
solicitation was conducted in accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative


Page 104

Regulations 3.10 to establish a QVL. One offer was received on Dec. 10, 2021. The
offer was determined to be responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements.

The Evaluation Committee evaluated the offer based on the evaluation criteria,
responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to provide
the required services. The Evaluation Criteria was as follows:

· Method of Approach and Service Implementation - 300 possible points;
· Experience and Qualifications - 200 possible points;
· Number of Languages Offered - 200 possible points;
· Evaluation of Proficiency - 200 possible points; and
· Cost/Budget - 100 possible points.

The Evaluation Committee recommends the following offeror be added to the QVL:

· AZ Language Solutions, LLC

Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about March 1, 2022, and will end on Feb. 28, 2027,
with no option to extend.

Financial Impact
Expenditures are not to exceed $250,000 over the life of the QVL. Funding is available
from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children,
Youth and Families. No additional General Funds are required.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On April 12, 2021, the Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council approved the request to
release the Interpreter Services RFQu.

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




Page 105



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Issue a Request for Proposals for the Sale and Development of
a City-Owned Property at 1121 W. Ironwood Drive

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for the sale and redevelopment of a City-owned property located at
1121 W. Ironwood Drive.

Summary
The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) is seeking sealed proposals for the
sale and redevelopment of City-owned property located at 1121 W. Ironwood Drive.
The vacant parcel measures approximately 10,111 square feet, or 0.23 acres, and was
purchased by the City from the State of Arizona in 2008. The purchase was made
using general purpose bond funds for blight elimination and to facilitate the
redevelopment of an infill home. The use of an RFP will encourage interested
developers to activate a vacant parcel within the already established neighborhood.
Upon City Council approval, staff will commission an appraisal to establish fair market
value, payments, and other considerations to ensure public benefit. The completed
appraisal will be made available to interested proposers to assist in the development of
their proposal.

The proposed RFP will be publicly advertised and made available for download. A
review panel will evaluate each proposal on a 1,000-point scale to evaluate the
proposed development. NSD will seek City Council approval to enter into a
redevelopment agreement with the proposer with the highest-rated proposal.

Concurrence/Precious Council Action
This item was approved by the Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee on
Feb. 2, 2022, by a 3-0 vote.

Financial Impact
There is no impact to the General Fund.

Location
1121 W. Ironwood Drive
Council District: 3


Page 106


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




Page 107



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Rental Rehabilitation Program Project Award (Ordinance S-48356)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into necessary loan
agreements with Community Housing Partnership, Inc., and other agreements as
necessary, for the completion of construction activities under the Rental Rehabilitation
Program at the following five locations: 614 N. 9th St.; 1910 E. Adams St.; 1634 E.
Monroe St.; 1638 E. Monroe St.; and 1905 E. Monroe St. Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds are available for these contract awards. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse funds up to $800,000.

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

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

NSD staff analyze submitted applications monthly for eligibility before they are
forwarded to the Rental Rehabilitation Program's review panel. The review panel,
which is comprised of City staff and experts in the affordable housing and rental
property management industries, evaluates applications (based on owner capacity,
management plan and history, project readiness, and financial feasibility) and
recommends project awards. The Rental Rehabilitation evaluation panel recommends
funding the following five, four-unit properties up to $40,000 per unit, or $160,000 per
property, for a total of $800,000.

· 614 N. 9th St.
· 1910 E. Adams St.



Page 108

· 1634 E. Monroe St.
· 1638 E. Monroe St.
· 1905 E. Monroe St.

These awards, in addition to previously awarded projects, may exhaust the $1 million
of CDBG program income reprogrammed by City Council for the expansion of the
Rental Rehabilitation Program. Any additional amount will be funded with available
current and prior year CDBG funds.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Community and Cultural Investment Subcommittee recommended approval of this
item on Feb. 2, 2022, by a 3-0 vote.

Location
All properties are located in Council District 8.

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




Page 109



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Foreign-Trade Zone Application for Sunlit Arizona LLC (Resolution 21992)

Request a Resolution to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to submit an
application to the Foreign-Trade Zones Board of the U.S. Department of Commerce for
Sunlit Arizona LLC, a subsidiary of United EM Holding Inc. (Sunlit), its subsidiaries,
affiliates, or related entities, and to support property tax reclassification for activated
Foreign-Trade Zones from property tax class 2 (or other classification) with a tax
assessment ratio of 15 percent, to property tax class 6 with a tax assessment ratio of
five percent pursuant to Arizona law (A.R.S. 42-12006). Also request authorization to
enter into a Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) Operations Agreement (Agreement) and any
other necessary documentation with Sunlit, or its City-approved nominee. Further
request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept funds related to this item.

Summary
The City of Phoenix, as Grantee of FTZ No. 75, has the right and authority to apply for
FTZ site designations. Sunlit manufactures specialty chemicals to be used in microchip
production which will help address the worldwide shortage of microchips that has led
to supply chain issues with a variety of products and vehicles. Sunlit has requested an
FTZ Subzone designation for property it owns located at 777 W. Alameda Rd. in
Phoenix. The proposed FTZ site consists of approximately 17 acres. Building(s)
expected to be constructed in Phase I will total approximately 130,000 square feet.
The project will create 25 new jobs with a projected capital investment of $50M.

Property tax support letters have been provided to the City from the following
applicable tax jurisdictions: Central Arizona Water Conservation District and Western
Maricopa Education Center. Support letters are pending from the following applicable
tax jurisdictions: Deer Valley Unified School District, Valleywise Health, Maricopa
County and Maricopa Community Colleges.

City staff will prepare an Operations Agreement with Sunlit requiring the company to:
· Comply with U.S. Department of Commerce Foreign-Trade Zones Board
standards
· Maintain record keeping satisfactory to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
· Obtain business bonding and insurance satisfactory to the City and the U.S.



Page 110

Customs and Border Protection
· Indemnify the City against claims arising from their FTZ operations
· Pay to the City all fees pursuant to the current zone fee schedule

The Agreement will contain other terms and conditions deemed necessary or
appropriate.

Contract Term
The term of the Agreement, if approved, will be for 20 years unless the FTZ
designation terminates sooner. Provisions of the contract may include an option to
extend for as long as the FTZ designation exists which may be exercised by the City
Manager or his designee.

Financial Impact
The City will incur no costs associated with Sunlit’s application; however, the property
may be reclassified to a lower tax rate once Sunlit successfully activates the FTZ. FTZ
Operators pay annual fees to the City, pursuant to the current zone fee schedule, to
administer the FTZ.

Location
777 W. Alameda Road
Council District(s): 1

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




Page 111



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of Resolution Approving the Issuance of Hotel Revenue Bonds (CFC-
Central Hotel, LLC Project) for Purposes of Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 35
-721(B) (Resolution 21996)

Requests City Council adoption of Resolution 21996 approving the issuance of Hotel
Revenue Bonds (CFC-Central Hotel, LLC Project), Series 2022, to be issued in one or
more tax-exempt and/or taxable series in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$60,000,000, solely for the purposes of complying with the Arizona Revised Statutes,
section 35-721(B).

Summary
Background
On January 5, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 21985 granting approval of
the proceedings under which The Phoenix Industrial Development Authority of the City
of Phoenix, Ariz. (the "Phoenix IDA") had resolved to issue up to $60,000,000 of Hotel
Revenue Bonds (the "Revenue Bonds") as required by A.R.S. 35-721(B). The
proceeds from the sale of the Revenue Bonds are to be used by CFC-Central Hotel,
LLC (the "Borrower"), an Arizona limited liability company, to

a) finance or refinance, as applicable, acquisition, construction, improvement,
equipping and/or operation of a hotel in Phoenix, Ariz., and
b) pay certain costs related to the issuance of the Revenue Bonds.

Resolution 21985 approved the proceedings of the Phoenix IDA under which the
Revenue Bonds were issued. On February 10, 2022, the Phoenix IDA adopted a
resolution amending such proceedings to reflect, among other things, that the project
would not be subject to a ground lease.

Current Request
Because Resolution 21985 did not reflect the Phoenix IDA's subsequent proceedings,
a new approval of the plan of financing and issuance of the Revenue Bonds is
requested by adoption of Resolution 21996.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix IDA Board previously resolved to issue the Revenue Bonds at its meeting


Page 112

held on December 20, 2021 and February 10, 2022. For purposes of providing the
approval required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, the City Council
adopted Resolution 21985 on January 5, 2022, which approval remains valid.

Location
The Project is located at 3150 North Central Avenue in Phoenix, Ariz.

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

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




Page 113



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
27th Avenue Corridor Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan (Ordinance
S-48351)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to add six new positions to the
Law Department/City Prosecutor's Office, four new civilian positions to the Police
Department, and two new positions to the Neighborhood Services Department to
support the 27th Avenue Corridor Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan
(Plan), which is a pilot project to address community safety in a collaborative manner,
leveraging technology as well as community-based resources. Also request
authorization to increase budgeted resources for the Prosecutor’s Office and the Street
Transportation and Neighborhood Services departments for the remainder of the fiscal
year for the implementation of the Plan. Further request to authorize the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Neighborhood Services, Police, Public Transit, Street Transportation, and Human
Services Departments, along with the Law Department/CityProsecutor’s Office, are
working collaboratively through this pilot project to improve the safety and quality of life
along the 27th Avenue Corridor adjacent to I-17. The 27th Avenue corridor is
consistently a source of violent crime, prostitution, drug use, trespassing, blight, and
other quality of life concerns. Ease of access to I-17, in combination with some poorly
managed hotels, motels and apartment complexes creates an environment where
crime can flourish with few impediments, which creates an undue burden for the
residents along the corridor. The uniqueness of the 27th Avenue Corridor, coupled with
limited resources, requires modern technological solutions as well as collaborative
partnerships to positively impact the quality of life for the community members and
businesses in this area. Staff has identified the following areas along 27th Avenue to
focus the initiative:

Focus Areas
Midtown Corridor
· Indian School Road;
· Camelback Road*;
· Bethany Home Road*;



Page 114

· Glendale Avenue*;
· Northern Avenue;

North Corridor
· Metrocenter Mall; and
· Bell Road.

Mobile Hot Spot Package*
· A mobile technology package to provide additional focus to areas based on current
need or displacement as the Plan is implemented. These additional resources will
allow the ability to focus on all areas of the corridor between Indian School Road
and Bell Road in an agile manner, as determined by data and community input.

*Added to the Plan based on feedback at and following the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee meeting in January 2022.

The City will be partnering with Arizona State University (ASU) to conduct a pre- and
post-intervention study of the areas and monitor performance measurements. For this
study, the focus areas above will run from 15th to 35th avenues to account for any
displacement that occurs due to the intervention of the initiative.

This initiative focused on the 27th Avenue corridor is intended to be phase one of
community safety and crime prevention efforts planned along I-17. A second phase,
pending inclusion in the approved FY 2022-23 budget, would follow to include focus
areas along the 19th Avenue corridor. Beginning with phase one, Cactus Park and
Desert Horizon Precincts, along with the other departments, will collaborate closely on
the implementation. Both precincts will be included in the planning and review from
inception. Implementing in two phases will enable departments to successfully hire the
additional staff, procure and install equipment, coordinate with the community and
implement other elements. Phase two resources will be proposed to the City Council in
the City Manager's 2022-23 Trial Budget.

To address these community concerns, the departments have set out to achieve the
following within the key focus areas of the 27th Avenue Corridor:
· Improve the safety of area residents, businesses, patrons and students;
· Build upon the City’s relationships with area community groups and business
partners;
· Increase coordination of resources to residents experiencing homelessness,
mental/behavioral health issues and/or those victimized by human trafficking; and


Page 115

· Reduce violent and quality of life crimes at key intersections along the corridor.

Strategy Areas
The City Manager's Office will coordinate the multi-department effort over a proposed
two-year pilot period with three strategies to address community concerns within the
corridor.

Outreach, Education and Partnerships
To develop and foster ongoing collaboration with key stakeholders, the outreach,
education and partnerships strategy will include leveraging strategic coordination
activities to engage and inform the community.

· Provide presentations to community organizations and schools.
· Collaborate with ASU for pre- and post-intervention study and performance
measurements.
· Facilitate coordination between businesses through the North Ocotillo Business
Alliance, D27 Business Alliance, the Violence Impact Coalition, and the Metro
District Community Collaboration for their respective areas and encourage
collaboration amongst the groups.
· Coordinate with area partners to conduct area clean ups bi-monthly along 27th
Avenue.
· Install additional lighting in the I-17 underpasses.
· Map the locations of current City activity in focus areas, including active Authority to
Arrest documents, blight cases, and PHX C.A.R.E.S. cases to inform action steps.
· Add focus areas to the PHX C.A.R.E.S. “hot spot” list for more weekly, proactive
outreach efforts.
· Incorporate mental health outreach efforts when upcoming contracts are approved.

Prevention and Intervention
To proactively address community issues and concerns, the prevention and
intervention strategy will include monitoring and reporting of blight and working with the
community to identify solutions and inform service approach.

· Engage and activate community groups.
· Promote Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principals with
community members, groups and businesses to enhance neighborhood safety.
· Monitor and address criminal activity at bus stops and review bus stop cleaning
activities, signage and amenities.
· Conduct proactive monthly common blight inspections, graffiti and shopping cart


Page 116

removals.
· Ensure outreach teams obtain additional information from clients during outreach to
inform service approach.
· Identify and work with local partners to identify ways they can support the City’s
efforts to address drug-related issues (e.g., New Freedom, Community Medical
Services, Southwest Behavioral and Health Services, Phoenix Rescue Mission).
· Identify potential alleys, as appropriate, to recommend further expansion of the
Gated Alley Program Pilot.
· Conduct CPTED audits within focus areas and ensure staff assigned to this area
are properly trained in CPTED principles.
· Work with property owners on solutions for ongoing issues.
· Work with business owners to provide resource information on and within their
businesses regarding where to get help.

Enforcement
To decrease violent crime and address quality of life concerns with limited staffing
availability, modern technological solutions are necessary to support the Phoenix
Police Department's field operations and violent crime follow-up investigations. The
enforcement strategies will include portable solutions to work in conjunction with
partnering departments on the initiative.

· Provide increased undercover operations to include narcotics, human trafficking,
and the Neighborhood Engagement Team.
· Introduce bike-mounted officers and police assistants.
· Utilize portable technology solutions including gunshot detection capabilities, mobile
license plate readers, and temporarily installed fixed cameras.
· Dedicate Community Prosecution staff to work with law enforcement, other City
departments, and the community to provide resources and education in the
administration of justice.
· City Departments will employ a coordinated approach to address properties with
blight and zoning issues that are contributing to the overall identified crime that is
having a negative impact in the area.
· Provide focused Code Enforcement efforts in the focus areas.
· Identify vacant buildings and ensure they are secured to City specifications.
· Promote Authority to Arrest and proper signage for private properties.
· Identify opportunities for additional enforcement tools like Drug-free zones near
schools.




Page 117

Performance Measurements
The City is collaborating with ASU to study the areas pre- and post-intervention. The
success of the initiative will be measured through the following performance indicators:

· Calls for police service in focus areas;
· Types of calls for police service in focus areas;
· Resident/merchant perceptions of problems in focus areas;
· Complaints or commendations from the community about the new responses to the
problems;
· Visible signs of disorder in focus areas;
· Referrals of individuals-in-need to social services and uptake of those referrals;
· Ease of procuring illegal drugs in focus areas (i.e., search time);
· Reduction in drug crimes;
· Reduction in overdoses;
· Reduction in violent crime;
· Achieve a voluntary code enforcement compliance rate of at least 90 percent in the
focus corridor areas;
· Assessments of vacant structures completed within 90 days (of filling the proposed
Neighborhood Inspector I position);
· Initiate any appropriate property abatement cases within 48 hours of assessment
inspection;
· Four neighborhood clean-ups conducted;
· Two CPTED audits conducted per month; and
· Improved coordination, communication, and education with law enforcement
partners and the community in the administration of justice.

Financial Impact
The total cost for the implementation of the initiative is $4,146,881 for the first year,
and $1,642,011 annually thereafter. The cost for the current fiscal year for the
proposed additions will be absorbed in the current 2021-22 Budget. The full-year costs
will be built into the fiscal year 2022-23 Budget. A summary of the resources for each
department are outlined in Attachment A.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee discussed this item at the Jan. 12, 2022,
meeting. The Subcommittee recommended the item for City Council approval, with
direction to staff to conduct further research and provide information on additional
focus areas, with a vote of 3-1.



Page 118

Location
Council Districts: 1, 4 and 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager Gina
Montes and the Neighborhood Services, Public Transit, Police, Street Transportation,
and Human Services departments and the City Prosecutor's Office in the Law
Department.




Page 119
Attachment A
FY 21-22 FY 22-23
City Prosecutor’s Office $256,632 $797,676
Add three Assistant City Attorney III (Prosecutor) positions 6.0 6.0
to work as Community Prosecutors, two Administrative
Assistants, and one Legal Assistant. The increased
staffing will allow for a dedicated team to perform legal
and property-records research, review and redact body
warn camera video, analyze property records, calls-for-
service and criminal history, and prepare and draft legal
pleadings to pursue the above-stated goals in the focus
areas.

Neighborhood Services $94,528 $214,381
Add one Neighborhood Preservation Inspector I and one 2.0 2.0
Neighborhood Specialist to provide dedicated support to
City coordinated efforts along the 27th Avenue corridor
through focused code enforcement in collaboration with
other City departments. The inspector would enforce on
blight, zoning, and regulated business city code violations
within a specified area in support of the City’s efforts to
suppress crime, reduce blight and eliminate illegal
business operations. The specialist would facilitate
coordination between neighborhood groups, business
associations, and stakeholders to engage and inform the
community.

Street Transportation $225,000 $0
Add funding for additional lighting under the I-17 0.0 0.0
underpasses. The estimated costs to improve lighting of
the I-17 underpass locations have increased as staff
further refined the scope of work, and in light of market
increases in both labor and materials costs.

Police $3,570,721 $629,954
Add four Police Assistant positions and funding for a 4.0 4.0
technology-based, portable solution to work in conjunction
with our partnering departments to decrease violent crime
and address quality of life concerns with limited staffing
availability. Modern technological solutions are necessary
to support field operations and violent crime follow-up
investigations. The Police Assistants will implement and
monitor the technological solutions.
Total: $4,146,881 $1,642,011




Page 120



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Hatcher Road Community Safety Plan (Ordinance S-48361)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to add one new civilian
position to the Police Department and increase budgeted resources for the Street
Transportation Department for the remainder of the fiscal year for increased street
cleanings to support the Hatcher Road Community Safety Plan (Plan). Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.

Summary
The Neighborhood Services, Police, Public Transit, Street Transportation, and
Human Services Departments, along with the Law Department/City Prosecutor’s
Office, are working collaboratively to improve the safety and provision of resources
along Hatcher Road in west Sunnyslope. Staff has identified the following area
along Hatcher Road to focus the initiative:

Focus Area
· Hatcher Road, from 7th to 19th avenues.

To address these community concerns, the departments have set out to achieve the
following:
· Improve the safety of area residents, businesses, and patrons;
· Build upon the City’s relationships with area community groups and business
partners to provide additional resources to the community, including residents
experiencing homelessness; and
· Reduce quality of life crimes at key intersections along Hatcher Road and protect
vulnerable community residents from victimization.

Strategy Areas
The City Manager's Office will coordinate the multi-department effort over a
proposed two-year pilot period in three strategic areas to address community
concerns.




Page 121

Outreach, Education and Partnerships
To develop and foster ongoing collaboration with key stakeholders, the outreach,
education and partnerships strategies will include leveraging strategic coordination
activities to engage and inform the community.

· Provide presentations to community organizations and schools.
· Facilitate coordination between businesses.
· Coordinate with area partners to conduct area clean ups bi-monthly.
· Map the locations of current City activity in the focus area, including blight cases
and PHX C.A.R.E.S. cases to inform action steps.
· Add the focus area to the PHX C.A.R.E.S. “hot spot” list for more weekly,
proactive outreach efforts.
· Work collaboratively with local service providers to improve service delivery while
minimizing negative impacts to neighborhood residents and businesses.

Prevention and Intervention
To proactively address community issues and concerns, prevention and intervention
strategies will include working with the community to identify solutions and inform
service approach.

· Engage and activate community groups.
· Promote Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) principals
with community members, groups and businesses to enhance neighborhood
safety.
· Monitor bus stop cleaning activities, signage and amenities.
· Conduct proactive monthly common blight inspections, graffiti and shopping cart
removals.
· Ensure outreach teams obtain additional information from clients during outreach
to inform service approach.
· Identify and work with local partners to identify ways they can support the City’s
efforts to provide resources for drug-related issues (e.g., New Freedom,
Community Medical Services, Southwest Behavioral and Health Services,
Phoenix Rescue Mission).
· Conduct CPTED audits within focus areas and ensure staff assigned to this area
are properly trained in CPTED principles.
· Work with property owners on solutions for ongoing issues.
· Work with business owners to provide resource information on and within their


Page 122

businesses regarding where to get help.

Enforcement
To decrease crime and address quality of life concerns with limited staffing
availability, modern technological solutions are necessary to support the Phoenix
Police Department's field operations. The enforcement strategies will include
portable solutions to work in conjunction with partnering departments on the
initiative.

· Utilize portable technology solutions including temporarily installed fixed
cameras.
· Provide focused Code Enforcement efforts in the focus area.

Financial Impact
The total cost for the implementation of the Plan is $167,206 for the first year, and $
111,702 annually thereafter. The cost for the current fiscal year for the proposed
additions will be absorbed in the current 2021-22 Budget. The full-year costs will be
built into the fiscal year 2022-23 Budget. A summary of the resources for each
department are outlined in Attachment A.

Location
Hatcher Road, from 7th to 19th avenues.
Council District: 3

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Gina Montes and the Neighborhood Services, Public Transit, Police, Street
Transportation, and Human Services departments and the City Prosecutor's Office
in the Law Department.




Page 123
Attachment A

FY 21-22 FY 22-23

Street Transportation $6,500 $17,500
Add funding for contractual costs for once per week 0.0 FTE 0.0 FTE
street cleanings around Ninth Avenue and Hatcher
Roads.

Police $160,706 $94,202
Add one Police Assistant position and funding for a 1.0 FTE 1.0 FTE
technology-based, portable solution to work in
conjunction with our partnering departments to
decrease crime and address quality of life concerns
with limited staffing availability. The Police Assistants
will implement and monitor the technological solutions.
Total: $167,206 $111,702




Page 124



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Request to Enter Into an Intergovernmental Agreement with Arizona State
University for the 27th Avenue Corridor Public Safety Initiative (Ordinance S-
48357)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with the Arizona Board of
Regents on behalf of Arizona State University (ASU), School of Criminology and
Criminal Justice Department, for the 27th Avenue Corridor Public Safety Initiative.
Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate value of this agreement will not exceed $52,581.

Summary
In response to a request for research and technical assistance from the City of
Phoenix and the Police Department, ASU will work collaboratively with key City
officials to develop and evaluate new responses to crime and disorder concerns in
selected areas of the City, to include major intersections along the 27th Avenue
corridor as well as other identified areas of concern within proximity of the corridor.

The analysis of the project will define the parameters of the focus areas, gather, and
analyze police data to understand and substantiate the public safety problems in these
areas. The project will entail interviewing key police and City officials knowledgeable
about these areas, to understand the precise public safety concerns and develop
testable explanations for what is causing or contributing to them.

ASU will further assist the Police Department and other City officials to explore
possible new responses to these problems so that decision-makers can decide upon a
plan of action. This will include reviewing published research and other reports about
the relative effectiveness of response options.

ASU will help document the action plan’s development and implementation so that
there is a clear record of what actions were taken and what challenges, if any, there
were to implement; will assess the effectiveness of the implemented responses to
improve public safety in the target areas, as well as look for any evidence of
displacement of the problems to other areas or conversely, added benefits to public
safety experienced outside the target areas; and will encourage the Police Department


Page 125

and other City officials to engage with the communities affected by the problems to
develop an action plan and implement and measure its impact.

Contract Term
The agreement will be valid for two years from the date of execution of all parties.

Financial Impact
Funding for this project is available in the Police Department's budget.

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




Page 126



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Peer Recovery Support Specialist Staffing - Requirements Contract - RFP 22-073
(Ordinance S-48325)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Terros, Inc., dba Terros Health and EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center to purchase
peer recovery support specialist staffing services for the Fire Department. Further
request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $23,000,000.

Summary
Peer recovery support specialist staffing services are being used to staff one member
of the two-member behavioral health units. Behavioral health units are being created
by the Fire Department to respond to low-acuity behavioral health and social welfare
calls received by the 9-1-1 dispatch center.

Procurement Information
RFP 22-073 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were three offers received by the Procurement Division on Dec. 28, 2021. The
notification was sent to 250 suppliers and was publicly posted and available for
download from the City's website.

The proposals were scored by a five-member evaluation panel based on the following
criteria:
Method of Approach - 400 points
Experience and Qualifications - 300 points
Capacity - 200 points
Price - 100 points

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the offers from Terros, Inc, dba
Terros Health and EMPACT Suicide Prevention Center be accepted as the highest
scored, responsive and responsible offers that are most advantageous to the City.

Contract Term
The one-year contract terms with four one-year options to extend will begin on or
about March 15, 2022.


Page 127


Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $23,000,000. Funds are available in the
Fire Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was scheduled for information and discussion only at the Public Safety and
Justice Subcommittee on Feb. 9, 2022.

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




Page 128



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Authorization to Extend Agreements for FY 2019 Homeland Security Grant
Program Funds (Ordinance S-48355)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to extend agreements for the
FY 2019 Homeland Security Grant Program from federal fiscal year 2019 Department
of Homeland Security grant funds, that include the Urban Area Security Initiative, and
the State Homeland Security Grant Program through the Arizona Department of
Homeland Security. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and
for the City Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
In September 2019, City Council approved entering into grant agreements for the
award of FFY 2019 Department of Homeland Security grant funds for up to $5 million
from the federal fiscal year (FFY) 2019 Department of Homeland Security Grant
Program that includes funds from the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), and the
State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), through the Arizona Department of
Homeland Security (AZDoHS). The US Department of Homeland Security distributes
Homeland Security Grant funds to enhance the ability of regional authorities to
prepare, prevent and respond to terrorist attacks and other disasters.

UASI and SHSGP grant funds are used by the Police and Fire Departments to
purchase equipment and vehicles, conduct training and exercises, perform
assessments of critical infrastructure sites, and implement target hardening measures
to protect critical infrastructure. Programs funded under the Homeland Security Grant
Program include Terrorism Liaison Officer Program, Community Emergency Response
Teams, Rapid Response Task Force, and the Metropolitan Medical Response System.

AZDoHS has requested a federal extension to the original grant period of performance
for the Phoenix Police and Fire Departments to complete program objectives and
expend the previously awarded federal funds.

Contract Term
The term of the grant agreements, which began on Oct. 1, 2019, through June 30,
2022, will be extended through Sept. 30, 2023.



Page 129

Financial Impact
No matching funds are required and no additional funds are awarded. Grant funds will
be managed through the Police and Fire Departments.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was previously approved with Ordinance S-46036 at the Phoenix City
Council meeting on Sept. 18, 2019.

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




Page 130



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Contract with Maricopa County Department of Public Health to Provide
Seasonal Influenza and Other Vaccines (Ordinance S-48359)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
City Contract No. 153292 to extend the contract with the Maricopa County Department
of Public Health (MCDPH) to continue to provide seasonal influenza and other
vaccines. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to accept, and the City
Controller to disburse, all funds related to this item.

Summary
City Contract No. 153292 was originally approved by the City Council on Oct. 7, 2020
to provide seasonal influenza and other vaccines. MCDPH is exercising the second
renewal period extending the contract through March 31, 2023.

The Phoenix Fire Department (PFD) has a long history of providing immunizations at
community locations, schools, community centers and other non-medical facilities, to
children and adults. The PFD has successfully immunized many Maricopa County
residents in partnership with MCDPH through previous agreements.

The City has partnered with MCDPH, to provide seasonal influenza vaccines (as well
as other types of vaccines if needed) to individuals six months of age and older. The
intent of this agreement is to increase access to vaccines thereby decreasing the
overall spread of viruses.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement, which began Nov. 2, 2020, will be extended through March
31, 2023.

Financial Impact
No additional funds are being awarded. MCDPH will reimburse the PFD for the
vaccinations on a per unit cost basis up to $100,000 over a five-year period.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
City Contract No. 153292 was approved by the City Council on Oct. 7, 2020.



Page 131

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




Page 132



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Telehealth Services- Requirements Contract - RFP 22-071 (Ordinance S-48360)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
MD Ally, Inc. for comprehensive turnkey Telehealth Services for the Phoenix Fire
Department (PFD). Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The offeror will provide services free of charge to the City.

Summary
The PFD responds to thousands of behavioral health and low acuity 9-1-1 calls for
service each year. These calls are received and routed for service through the Phoenix
Fire Department Regional Dispatch Center (PFDRDC). The PFD seeks innovative
turnkey telehealth delivery solutions from telehealth providers that can be integrated
into its existing 9-1-1 procedures to enhance communication, reduce response times,
deliver additional lines of care, and provide prevention strategies to maximize the
PFD’s availability for the next service call.
This system shall provide a secure interactive audio/visual application,
communications platform, data storage, data management functions, and robust
business intelligence tools for reporting. The contractor will use these communications
and data tools to provide access to health care professionals (doctors, osteopaths,
registered nurses, licensed practical nurses, licensed clinical social workers,
substance use and abuse counselors, crisis intervention counselors, or other allied
health professionals), that deliver crisis, mental, behavioral, and medical health
services.
The PFD expects that referring 9-1-1 callers directly to outstanding care services will
have the secondary benefit of reducing low acuity dispatches of PFD units (diversion
at dispatch), thereby decreasing non-emergency transports.
Procurement Information
RFP 22-071 was conducted in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10. There
were four offers received by the Procurement Division on Dec. 27, 2021. The
notification was sent to 250 suppliers and was publicly posted and available for
download from the City's website.

The proposal was scored by a seven-member evaluation panel based on the following
criteria:


Page 133


Experience and Qualifications - 400
Method of Approach - 300
Capacity - 200
Cost - 100

The Assistant Finance Director recommends that the offer from MD Ally, Inc. be
accepted as the highest scored, responsive, and responsible offer most advantageous
to the City.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about March 15, 2022, for a one-year term with four
options to extend.

Financial Impact
The offeror will provide services free of charge to the City; by following the model
partnering with insurance payors across the country to initiate cost savings
agreements, benefits service providers and patients receive care without associated
costs. There will be no financial impact to the Phoenix Fire Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was scheduled for information and discussion only at the Public Safety and
Justice Subcommittee on Feb. 9, 2022.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Lori Bays, Deputy City Manager
Ginger Spencer and the Phoenix Fire Department.




Page 134



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Donation from Phoenix Police Foundation of Motorist Assist Vehicles
(Ordinance S-48353)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a donation of two
Toyota trucks from the Phoenix Police Foundation valued at approximately $52,000
each.

Summary
This donation is for two Toyota trucks that will be utilized by the Police Department's
Motorist Assist Program. This program consists of uniformed civilians who assist
motorists who have encountered vehicular problems while using city streets.
Assistance provided may include, but is not limited to, pushing and starting vehicles;
opening vehicle doors; providing fuel, air, or water; assisting with changing a tire/s;
arranging transportation; or other assistance reasonably required to aid the temporarily
stranded motorist. Personnel may be called upon to assist at vehicular accident
scenes for traffic control or assist at special events. The donation of these vehicles will
enable the program to enhance their assistance to the community.

The Phoenix Police Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The Foundation
is committed to addressing unmet capital needs of the Phoenix Police Department,
providing financial assistance in crisis situations and recognizing those who protect our
community.

Financial Impact
Costs to the City will include standard operation and maintenance expenses. Funds
are available in the Police Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Public Safety and Justice
Subcommittee on Feb. 9, 2022, by a 4-0 vote.

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




Page 135



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Fire Alarm System / Network and Fire Sprinkler / Suppression System Services -
Amendment (Ordinance S-48332)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 146996 with Climatec, LLC, to provide additional funding for fire alarm,
suppression and sprinkler system services for the Aviation Department. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
total value of the additional expenditures will not exceed $585,000.

Summary
On Feb. 21, 2018, the City Council approved Contract 146996 to provide code
mandated testing and inspection services as well as repair and maintenance of both
the fire alarm system and the fire sprinkler system on an as-needed basis at Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport, Deer Valley Airport, and Goodyear Airport (Airports).

The purpose of this amendment is to provide additional funds for unforeseen
expenditures due to failed sprinkler heads and various emergency repairs as well as
additional National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) required inspections and repairs
for fire hydrants, hose cabinets, and fire system backflows. Additionally, in March 2020,
the contract was amended to add Phoenix Fire Department mandated reporting for all
fire protection systems. It is now required that all fire protection system inspections be
tracked by a Compliance Engine web portal which immediately reports any critical
impairments directly to the Phoenix Fire Department. This new required reporting
system includes filing fees and administrative fees per report which were not in effect
when this contract was awarded.

Contract Term
There is no change to the current two-year term of the contract, which began on March
1, 2018 and includes three, one-year options to extend, for a five-year aggregate
contract term.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for the services contract was for an expenditure not to exceed
$5.5 million. This request will increase the authorization for the contract by an
additional $585,000, for a new total not-to-exceed contract value of $6,085,000.


Page 136

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Contract 146996 (Ordinance S-44276) on Feb. 21, 2018.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 3400 E. Sky Harbor Blvd.;
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport - 702 W. Deer Valley Road; and
Phoenix Goodyear Airport - 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council Districts: 1, 8 and Out of City

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




Page 137



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
North Gateway Transfer Station, Materials Recovery Facility Fire Suppression
System - RFA 22-SW-035 - Requirements Contract (Ordinance S-48330)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Fire Rover LLC, to install a fire protection system at the Public Works
Department's North Gateway Materials Recovery Facility. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This agreement will have
an aggregate amount of $194,400.

Summary
This agreement will provide a comprehensive fire protection system for the Materials
Recovery Facility at the North Gateway Transfer Station. It will integrate heat, smoke
and flame detection using remote fire suppression services, video monitoring, and
state of the art heat sensing cameras. This system will provide additional coverage to
the current infrastructure for fire protection and will be monitored 24 hours-per-day,
seven days-per-week by the contractor.

Procurement Information
In accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10, normal competition was waived as
the result of a determination memo, citing special circumstance, without competition.

Contract Term
This contract is to begin after receiving City Council approval and will be for one year.
Provisions of the contract may include an option to extend the term up to two years, to
be taken in one-year increments, which may be exercised by the City Manager or his
designee.

Financial Impact
The estimated annual expenditure is $64,800, and total aggregate amount not to be
exceeded over the life of the contract is $194,400.

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

Location
North Gateway Transfer Station - 30205 N. Black Canyon Hwy.


Page 138

Council District: 2

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




Page 139



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Welding and Metal Fabrication Services - Contract Recommendation (Ordinance
S-48333)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into two separate
contracts with Lincoln Constructors, Inc., and Jerry R. Elliot, DBA Certi-Welders, for
welding and metal fabrication services. Further request to authorize for the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This item will have an aggregate
amount of $520,760.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining over 600 heavy-duty
vehicles and equipment including tractors, front loaders, backhoes, and refuse trucks
that provide critical services to City residents. The department uses welding and metal
fabrication services for various operational needs including trash collection and
recycling bin repairs, and repairs to City buildings and property.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid (IFB) 22-FSD-034 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. The Public Works Department notified 43 vendors of the bid
opportunity, and received two bids. Both bids were evaluated based on
responsiveness and responsibility with both vendors being recommended for award
based on the following labor rates for onsite services:

Lincoln Constructors, Inc: $75.00/hr
Jerry R. Elliot, DBA Certi-Welders: $80.00/hr

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

Financial Impact
This item will have an estimated annual expenditure of $104,152, with a total
aggregate amount of $520,760.



Page 140

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

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




Page 141



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Fire Pump and Service
Entrance Section Replacement - Architectural Services - AV21000107 (Ordinance
S-48324)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with SmithGroup, Inc., to provide Architectural Services that include design and
possible construction administration and inspection services for the Phoenix Sky
Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 Fire Pump and Service Entrance Section
Replacement project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $500,000.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to replace and upgrade the Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport Terminal 4 Processor main fire pump and connected Service
Entrance Section to support existing and new fire pump loads and to comply with
current electrical code requirements.

As part of the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport Terminal 4 South 1 concourse
project, SmithGroup, Inc. prepared a study of the existing Terminal 4 fire protection
system and found the existing fire pump serving Terminal 4 does not currently have the
capability to meet the minimum required flow and pressure for the system and will


Page 142

need to be replaced. In addition, the electrical service will need to be upgraded to
accommodate the pump upgrade. SmithGroup, Inc. has developed 30 percent
schematic documents and is uniquely qualified to complete the design to ensure
compliance with all applicable codes.

As a result of this process, SmithGroup, Inc. and its subconsultants have become very
familiar with the requirements and operations of Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport Terminal 4 fire protection system and electrical service as well as operations of
the facility to minimize impacts while developing and completing this work.

SmithGroup Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: 60 percent Design
Development including load studies and capacity analysis to evaluate emergency
power options; prepare pre-purchase packages for long-lead equipment; prepare 95
percent and 100 percent construction documents; cost estimating; provide Bid Phase
services; possible construction administration and inspection services; and other tasks
as assigned for a complete project.

Procurement Information
SmithGroup, Inc. was chosen for this project using a Direct Select process set forth in
section 34-103 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). The Direct Select process will
reduce the time to procure architectural services as opposed to an advertised selection
process; meeting the project deadline, ensuring continuity and the most efficient use of
staff and funding resources.

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for SmithGroup, Inc. will not exceed $500,000, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

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




Page 143

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

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




Page 144



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend Ordinance of Intention to form the Hedgepeth Waterline Replacement
Improvement District (Ordinance S-48327)

Request City Council approval of the Amended Ordinance of Intention to form the
Hedgepeth Waterline Replacement Improvement District due to design changes and
increased costs.

Summary
On July 3, 2019, City Council approved Ordinance S-45902 (Attachment A) declaring
the intention to form the Hedgepeth Waterline Improvement District and adopted
preliminary plans for construction of a new distribution waterline in an area generally
bounded by 51st to 43rd avenues from Loop 101 to Pinnacle Peak Road (Attachment
B) for Project WS85503001 (ID1309). City Council authorized the cost of
improvements to be assessed upon the District and authorized the work to be
performed under Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 48-571 to 48-621.

The original suggested waterline design approved by City Council provided an
alignment along 51st Avenue which avoids a dead-end condition in the existing section
of waterline on Tonopah Drive between 51st Avenue and 49th Drive. Dead-end
conditions can result in stagnant water in the pipe and can lead to the need for City of
Phoenix Water Services Department (WSD) crews flushing lines manually resulting in
loss of water and added maintenance costs in order to maintain water quality. The 51st
Avenue alignment will encroach into the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
right-of-way (ROW). WSD has engaged ADOT in detailed discussions regarding the
conditions ADOT is requiring for the installation of the water line in its ROW at the
Agua Fria/Loop 101 Freeway. The additional ADOT design requirements (Attachment
C) and market conditions have increased the anticipated cost of either alignment by
$1.64 million. The 51st Avenue alignment is estimated to cost $3.6 million based on
the final design. In September 2021, the Street Transportation Department and WSD
re-balloted the affected owners to determine if there was sufficient support to proceed
given the increase to $3.6 million dollars.

The City plans to construct the 51st Avenue alignment in order to maintain water
quality by reducing stagnant water. After the revised $3.6 million project cost estimate
was shared with the developers, the developers asked that the City consider the 49th


Page 145

Drive alternative alignment, hoping to achieve lower costs. The parties agreed that
both alignments, 51st Avenue and 49th Drive, would be advertised for bids. However,
only the 51st Avenue alignment will be constructed. The City will contribute the
difference in funds if the 51st Avenue alignment is more expensive than the 49th Drive
alignment. If the 51st Avenue alignment is less expensive than the 49th Drive
alignment, the City will not contribute funds to the project.

Financial Impact
The revised improvement cost to the property owners is estimated at $3.6 million,
including soft costs. The original approved estimate was $1.96 million. The estimated
participation from the City of Phoenix is $0-550,800 (0-15.3 percent of final costs)
depending on whether the 51st alignment is more expensive than the 49th Drive
alignment. These estimates include design, right-of-way, construction, and
administration costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
Budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved the ordinance of intention to form the Hedgepeth Waterline
Replacement Improvement District (Ordinance S-45902) on July 3, 2019.

Public Outreach
· October 2017 - All affected property owners were petitioned and 76.2 percent
approved the request to form the improvement district.
· April 2018 - All affected property owners were balloted and 73.6 percent supported
the waterline improvement project.
· July 11, 2019 (first Thursday after Ordinance approval) - Ordinance of Intention was
published in the Arizona Business Gazette.
· July 18, 2019 (first Thursday following first publishing) - Ordinance of Intention was
published in the Arizona Business Gazette.
· Aug. 9, 2019 - Ordinance of Intention was posted every 300 feet within the
proposed improvement area.
· Aug. 27, 2019 - Legal protest period for the Ordinance of Intention to form the
Improvement District expired with no protests filed.
· May 11, 2020 - City of Phoenix mailed an updated cost letter to all affected property
owners.
· April 2021 - City of Phoenix mailed ballots to all affected property owners to
determine the level of support for the proposed improvements.



Page 146

· July 2021 - City of Phoenix mailed ballots to all affected property owners to
determine the level of support for the proposed improvements given the revised
project cost estimates.
· Sept. 14, 2021 - City of Phoenix mailed a letter to all affected property owners
explaining the ballot results that showed 68.6 percent of the property owners
supported the revised project. Eight property owners rejected the proposed
improvement district and four property owners did not respond to the ballot.

Location
The proposed waterline improvement district includes single-family residences and
one commercial business located within an area generally bounded by 51st to 43rd
avenues from Loop 101 to Pinnacle Peak Road.

Council District: 1

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Karen Peters,
and the Street Transportation and Water Services departments.




Page 147
Attachment A




ORDINANCE S-45902

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO FORM THE
HEDGEPETH WATERLINE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT,
TO ADOPT PRELIMINARY PL,ANS FOR THE
IMPROVEMENT OF THE INSTALLATION OF A
WATERLINE IN AN AREA GENERALLY BOUNDED BY
51ST AVENUE TO 43RD AVENUE FROM LOOP 101 TO
PINNACLE PEAK ROAD, AND DETERMINING THAT
IMPROVEMENT BONDS WILL BE ISSUED TO
REPRESENT THE COSTS AND EXPENSES THEREOF,
AND ADOPTING THE RELATED PRELIMINARY PLANS;
AND DECLARING THE WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS TO
BE OF MORE THAN LOCAL OR ORDINARY PUBLIC
BENEFIT; AND THAT THE COSTS OF WORK OR
IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE ASSESSED UPON THE
DISTRICT; AND PERFORMED UNDER ARIZONA
REVISED STATUTES SECTIONS 48-571 TO 48-621.




SECTION 1. The public interest and convenience require, and it is

the intention of the Council of the City of Phoenix to form the Hedgepeth Waterline

Improvement District (WS85503001 ID 1309) for the real property located within

an area generally bounded by 51 st Avenue to 43rd Avenue from Loop 101 to

Pinnacle Peak Road, and adopting the related preliminary plans. The proposed

improvements shown in the Hedgepeth Waterline Improvement Preliminary

Boundary Map and Scope ("Attachment A"), includes, but is not limited to,

installation of new waterline, relocation of existing improvements as needed, and

performance of all items of work called for in these preliminary plans,




Project No. ( S85503001 ID 1309) 1 Ordinance S-45902
Page 148
specifications, or indicated by estimates of improvements costs. The proposed

improvements may be constructed under one or more contracts.·

SECTION 2. The estimated improvement cost are estimated at ONE

MILLION EIGHT HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,800,000.00) for Option B

12-inch waterline and ONE MILLION NINE HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND

DOLLARS ($1,960,000.00) for Alternate Bid Option B 16-inch waterline. These

costs include design, surveys, construction and administration cost. Funding is

available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program

Budget.

SECTION 3. Preliminary plans for the improvements showing

location and the type and character of the improvements and estimates of the cost

and expenses are on file with the Phoenix City Clerk and are hereby adopted and

approved.

SECTION 4. All of the above work or improvements will be done in

accordance with the final plans and specifications for City of Phoenix Improvement

. Project No. WS85503001 ID 1309 to be filed in the office of the.Superintendent of

Streets and the office of the City Clerk prior to the adoption by City Council of the

resolution ordering the work and in further accordance with City of Phoenix

contract documents, standard specifications, general conditions and any special

provisions.

SECTION 5. The contemplated work or improvements, in the opinion

of the Council, are of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and that the City

Council hereby makes the costs and expenses of work or improvements

chargeable upon this district and hereby declares that the Hedgepeth Waterline

Improvement District in the City of Phoenix, benefited by the · work or ·



Project No. (WS85503001 ID 1309) 2 Ordinance S-45902
Page 149
improvements, will be assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, in

proportion to the benefits to be derived from the District as depicted in Attachment

A

SECTION 6. The Council finds that pub_lic convenience requires

that improvement bonds will be issued to represent the costs and expenses of

such work or improvements, and determines that improvement bonds will be

issued under provisions of A.R.S., Sections 48-571 to 48-621 and amendments

thereto,· in the name of the City of Phoenix, and payable out of a special fund

collected by the City of Phoenix from special assessments levied and assessed

upon the lots, pieces and parcels of land included within the above described

district. Said bonds will bear interest at the maximum rate of six and nine-tenths

percent (6.9%) per annum. Bonds will be payable in the manner, and be subject

to the provisions as to collection of assessments, for the payments as prescribed

in A.R.S., Sections 48-571 to 48-621, and amendments thereto, save and except

that the method of collection of assessments will be as provided by A.R.S.,

Sections 48-600 to 48-607; Section 48-608 is not applicable.

SECTION 7. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby authorized

and directed to cause final plans and specifications to be prepared and filed in the

office of the Superintendent of Streets and the City Clerk prior to adopting the

resolution ordering the work.

SECTION 8. The Superintendent of Streets will post notices of the

proposed improvements and t_he City Clerk will attest the passage of this

ordinance, and will cause the same to be published in the Arizona Business

Gazette, a weekly newspaper published and circulated in the City of Phoenix,

and designated for that purpose. The Superintendent of Streets will prepare



Project No. (WS85503001 ID 1309) 3 Ordinance S-45902
Page 150
duplicate diagrams of the district described in this ordinance, to be assessed to

pay the costs and expenses thereof, under and in accordance with the

provisions of A.RS., Sections 48-571 through 48-621 and amendments thereto.

SECTION 9. This ordinance will take effect and be in force from and

after its passage, publication and posting as required by law.

SECTION 10. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with

the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 3rd day of July,

2019.



ATTEl
/ /

_} h'.kf/c;1y c1 r1<
APPROVED AS TO fORM:




REVIEWED BY:




Published: rizona Business Gazette
July11,2019
July 18, 2019




Project No. (WS85503001 ID 1309) 4 Ordinance S-45902
Page 151
Project No. WS85503001 (ID 1309)



CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS

The City Clerk of the

To comply with the requirement of A.R.S. § 48-577 and amendments thereto, I
. hereby submit plans and an estimate of cost for the proposed improvements
for Project No. WS85503001 (ID 1309) and hereby estimate the cost and
expenses of these improvements described as follows: The improvement of
the area generally bounded by Loop 101 on the south to Tonopah Drive on the
north from 51 st Avenue on the west to 47 th Ave on the east, by the installation
of a waterline improvement and performance of all items of work related to the
project.

Opt. B 12-inch Construction Cost: $ 900,000

Incidental Construction Cost: $ 252,000

Design, Right of Way & Adm Cost: $ 648,000

· .Total Estimated 12-inch Project Cost: $1,800,000

Alt. Bid Opt. B 16-inch Construction Cost: $1,009,000

Incidental Construction Cost: $ 252,000

Design, Right of Way & Adm Cost: $ 699,000

Total Estimated 16-inch Project Cost: $1,960,000


(' · ? = 1 ' - : i c . . , . L " " - - . . . . : . . . . - - - - - - l i ' - ' l ! l i o . , A . . d - - = = = = - - - - -
(.:;·sy: ini LE. Knudson, PE
OX Superintendent of Str ets
Published: The Arizona Business Gazette
July 11 th , 2019
July 18 th , 2019


Project No. (WS85503001 ID 1309) 5 Ordinance S-45902
Page 152
Attachment A - Preliminary Boundary Map


Hedgepeth Waterline ID Study, Area Bound By {ABB): 51st Ave to 43rd Ave from Loop 101 to Pinnacle Peak Rd Alignment




Page 153




,i::.
Cit
(0
Q
Attachment B - Preliminary Boundary Map

+HGJHSHWK:DWHUOLQH,'6WXG\$UHD%RXQG%\ $%% VW$YHWRUG$YHIURP/RRSWR3LQQDFOH3HDN5G$OLJQPHQW

$7(
,9






'
5
$0

'
%(
$'2




 
%

' 



%



5266$9(
'
+$
9(
 02121$
7 '5
. /
1'$9(

Page 154
67
+ /1
3 7(5 '5
 &

% )
,50$/1
02+$:./1
02+$:. 3
/1 4
5
581,21'5
%$6(/,1(,03529(0(176
&,7<2)*/(1'$/( 5 :$7(5/,1( + 6
:$7(50(7(5

27 1'$9(
72123$+'5
% <8.21'5
$'27
237,21%67$9(18( & -$&.,1*3,7
5(7(17,21%$6,1
25:$7(5/,1(
35,9$7(


Y
S 0(1$'27$
$ '5 7+$9( $7( '5
7+ 0(1$'27
237,21$7+'5,9( ,9 5'
35 7+  5
/1 7+ :$7(5/,1(-$&.$1'%25( &,
7+ $9( 1'
67/1
7+ '5 5 ' (6&8'$'5
(6&8'$'5 35,9$7(  '5 (6&8' $ ' 5
(6&8'$'5 7 /1 '5
/1 7+$9( 7+ /1 +
7+/1 5(&(,9,1*3,7
/1 /1 1' //$ /1
7+ 7+ :$+$//$/1 /$ 5''5 : $+$
3DWK,?8VHUV?*/RXJK?3URMHFWV?0$36?$UOHQH*XHYDUD3DUFHOV?:DWHU)DFLOLWLHV,PSURYHPHQW3DUFHOVDSU[ :$ + $/ mapservices@phoenix.gov
:$+$//$/1 '5 $9( /1
((!(,#
#','$ , , $, ") , +,  , &', *,(",%, *,%",""#,,'", !,,, !!(,


 






  
 







Page 155


   





     
  



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
West Plaza Park Renovation - Design-Bid-Build Services - ND30010030 and
PA75200609 (Ordinance S-48341)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept DNG Construction,
LLC as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with DNG Construction, LLC for Design-Bid-Build Services for the West
Plaza Park Renovation project. Further request to authorize the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed
$1,902,818.98.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide renovations and park enhancements to West
Plaza Park to include new picnic ramadas, walking pathways, basketball and sand
volleyball sports courts, a fitness plaza, area lighting, and landscape and irrigation
improvements.

DNG Construction, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: provide and install
park furnishings and equipment; electrical and area lighting; walkways, ramps, grading
and drainage, landscape and irrigation; and other improvements as required for a
complete project in compliance with approved plans.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Three bids were received on Dec. 7,
2021 and were sent to the Neighborhood Services Department for review to determine
contractor compliance and responsiveness to Community Development Block Grant
program compliance and Neighborhood Services Department's Section 3 project
requirements. A Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal has not been established for
this project.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:

Opinion of Probable Cost: $2,004,001.15
DNG Construction, LLC: $1,902,818.98


Page 156

AJP Electric, Inc.: $2,097,188.10

Bidders who were deemed non-responsive are listed below, in alphabetical order:
Straight Arrow Contracting, LLC

The bid award amount is within the total budget for this project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 170 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for DNG Construction, LLC will not exceed $1,902,818.98,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Parks and Recreation Capital Improvement Program
budget, and Neighborhood Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget using U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block
Grant funds. The Budget and Research Department will separately review and
approve funding availability prior to execution of any amendments. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.

Location
6549 N. 43rd Ave.
Council District: 5

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes, Inger Erickson and
Mario Paniagua, the Neighborhood Services Department, the Parks and Recreation
Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 157



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
2020-21 Parks Lighting Improvements Community Development Block Grant -
Design-Bid-Build Services - ND30010029 (Ordinance S-48347)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept Kimbrell Electric,
Inc. as the lowest-priced, responsive and responsible bidder and to enter into an
agreement with Kimbrell Electric, Inc. for Design-Bid-Build Services for the 2020-21
Parks Lighting Improvements Community Development Block Grant project. Further
request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The
fee for services will not exceed $1,957,442.48.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to improve the area and sports lighting at five local parks:
Central Park; El Prado Park; Nevitt Park; Palomino Park and Sweetwater Park, using
U.S. Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds.

Kimbrell Electric, Inc.'s services include, but are not limited to: removal and installation
of ball field lighting structures including underground electrical conduit runs; removal of
poles/lighting structures and installation of lighting structures including concrete
foundations; replacement of interior and exterior light fixtures on the restroom
buildings; installation of underground electrical conduit to the new lighting structures;
and provide other improvements as required for a complete project in compliance with
approved plans.

Procurement Information
The selection was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process set forth in
section 34-201 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Three bids were received on Dec. 14,
2021 and were sent to the Neighborhood Services Department for review and to
determine contractor compliance and responsiveness to CDBG program compliance
and Neighborhood Services Department's Section 3 project requirements.

The Opinion of Probable Cost and the two lowest responsive, responsible bidders are
listed below:

Opinion of Probable Cost: $2,046,180.00


Page 158

Kimbrell Electric, Inc.: $1,957,442.48
Hawkeye Electric, Inc.: $2,056,999.87

Bidders who were deemed non-responsive are listed below, in alphabetical order:
Sellers and Sons, Inc.

The bid award amount is within the total budget for this project.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is 170 calendar days from issuance of the Notice to
Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the termination of
the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Kimbrell Electric, Inc. will not exceed $1,957,442.48,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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

Location
Central Park - 140 E. Tonto St.
El Prado Park - 6428 S. 19th Ave.
Nevitt Park - 6815 S. 44th Way
Palomino Park - 15815 N. 30th St.
Sweetwater Park - 13230 N. 44th St.

Council Districts: 2, 3 and 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Inger Erickson, Gina Montes and
Mario Paniagua, the Parks and Recreation and Neighborhood Services departments,
and the City Engineer.




Page 159



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Citywide Civil Construction - Job Order Contracting Services - 4108JOC203
(Ordinance S-48348)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into separate master
agreements with three contractors, to provide Citywide Civil Construction Job Order
Contracting services. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreements as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $25 million for each master agreement, for a total
fee for services that will not exceed $75 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical; water; sewer; natural gas; telecommunications; cable
television; railroads; and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The Job Order Contractors (JOC) will be used on an as-needed basis to provide
Citywide Civil Construction Job Order Contracting Services. Additionally, the JOC
contractors will be responsible for fulfilling Small Business Enterprise program
requirements.

Procurement Information
The selections were made using a qualifications-based selection process set forth in
section 34-604 of the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.). In accordance with A.R.S.
section 34-604(H), the City may not publicly release information on proposals received
or the scoring results until an agreement is awarded. Fourteen firms submitted
proposals and are listed in Attachment A.


Page 160


Contract Term
The term of each master agreement is for up to five years, or up to $25 million,
whichever occurs first. Work scope identified and incorporated into the master
agreement prior to the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may
extend past the termination of the master agreement. No additional changes may be
executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The master agreement value for each of the JOC contractors will not exceed $25
million, including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs. The total fee for all services
will not exceed $75 million.

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute job order
agreements performed under these master agreements for up to $4 million each. In no
event will any job order agreement exceed this limit without Council approval to
increase the limit.

Funding is available in the citywide department's Capital Improvement Program and
Operating budgets. The Budget and Research Department will review and approve
funding availability prior to issuance of any job order agreement. Payments may be
made up to agreement limits for all rendered agreement services, which may extend
past the agreement termination.

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




Page 161
ATTACHMENT A


Selected Firms
Rank 1: Hunter Contracting Co.
Rank 2: Talis Construction Corporation
Rank 3: J. Banicki Construction, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 4: DCS Contracting, Inc.
Rank 5: DNG Construction, LLC
Rank 6: FNF Construction, Inc.
Rank 7: Markham Contracting Co., Inc.
Rank 8: Mark Scott Construction, Inc.
Rank 9: Nesbitt Contracting Co., Inc.
Rank 10: Rummel Construction, Inc.
Rank 11: SDB, Inc. dba SDB Contracting Services
Rank 12: Stormwater Plans, LLC dba SWP Contracting & Paving
Rank 13: Sunland Asphalt & Construction, LLC
Rank 14: ViaSun Corporation




Page 162



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Precision Approach Path Indicator System Upgrade
- Engineering Services - Amendment 1 - AV31000091 (Ordinance S-48352)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 152896 with Lean Technology Corporation, to provide additional
Engineering Services for the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Precision Approach Path
Indicator System Upgrade project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreements 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
$100,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to upgrade the existing two-box Federal Aviation
Administration Precision Approach Path Indicator system to a four-box LED Precision
Approach Path Indicator System at Phoenix Deer Valley Airport. Phoenix Deer Valley
Airport's four existing Precision Approach Path Indicators utilize a two-light system.
These lights provide information to the pilot for the approaching aircraft whether the
aircraft is above or below the ideal glide path to the runway. A four-light system
provides the pilot with more precise information. The proposed four-light system
enhances a pilot's situational awareness and increases safety.

This amendment is necessary because the initial authorization was insufficient to
cover all design and construction administration and inspection services. This
amendment will provide additional funds to the agreement.

Lean Technology Corporation's additional services include, but are not limited to:
completing design, and generating and updating existing drawings and specifications
as required; providing inspections; review of construction submittals for project
compliance; review and approve pay requests and change orders; conduct substantial
completion inspection; issue letter of Substantial completion; and conduct warranty
walk and inspection.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is unchanged from five years from the issuance of the


Page 163

Notice to Proceed. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to
the end of the term may be agreed to by the parties, and work may extend past the
termination of the agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of
the term.

Financial Impact
· The initial agreement for Engineering Services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $108,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.
· This amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $100,000, for a new
total amount not to exceed $208,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable
costs.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Engineering Services Agreement 152896 (Ordinance S-
46895) on Sept. 2, 2020.

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

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




Page 164



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Adoption of Vision Zero Strategy Resolution for the City of Phoenix (Resolution
21995)

Request City Council approval of a resolution to adopt the Vision Zero strategy for the
Safety Action Plan.

Summary
On Jan. 25, 2022, City Council was provided with an update on the development of the
Street Transportation Department's Comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan (RSAP)
to improve safety on Phoenix roadways. The City Council approved Phoenix to
become part of the Vision Zero Network and incorporate Vision Zero into the goals of
the RSAP. The proposed resolution provided as Attachment A adopts the Vision Zero
strategy with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities on Phoenix roadways.

Road Safety Action Plan
The RSAP will be a comprehensive safety plan applying a data-driven, decision-
making process to identify and prioritize transportation safety improvements with a
“Four E's” approach (Evaluation, Education, Engineering, and Enforcement). Phoenix's
existing efforts on the RSAP closely align with the framework of a Vision Zero Action
Plan, with its emphasis on meaningful community engagement, equity, and data-
driven, systems-based strategies to improve road safety for all Phoenicians.

Vision Zero Network
The Vision Zero Network is a U.S.-based non-profit organization that advocates for
cities to adopt the core philosophy of Vision Zero: that traffic-related deaths and
serious injuries are preventable. The Vision Zero Network recognizes cities that take
action adopting this approach to road safety as a "Vision Zero Community." One of the
key steps toward this recognition is a political commitment to adopt the goal of
eliminating all traffic-related deaths. To date, fifty-one cities in the United States have
been recognized by the Vision Zero Network.

Financial Impact
There is no financial impact to the City for adoption of this resolution.



Page 165

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Citizens Transportation Commission:
· Recommended City Council approval of the development of the RSAP on Jan. 28,
2021, by a vote of 15-0; and
· Received an update on the RSAP on Oct. 28, 2021.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Innovation Subcommittee:
· Recommended City Council approval for the development of the RSAP on Feb. 3,
2021, by a vote of 4-0.

The Transportation, Infrastructure and Planning Subcommittee:
· Received an update on the RSAP on Oct. 20, 2021, with a request to provide a
recommendation to Council regarding the Vision Zero strategy.

The City Council:
· Approved the development of the RSAP, completion of near-term projects, and
additional staffing resources on March 2, 2021; and
· Received an update on the development of the RSAP and approved moving
forward with the Vision Zero strategy and incorporation of Vision Zero goals into the
RSAP on Jan. 25, 2022, by a vote of 7-2.

Public Outreach
Street Transportation Department staff developed a Public Involvement Plan, which
established an interactive website featuring a community engagement survey that will
remain live through February 2022, and interactive participation in citywide and
Council District-specific meetings. The first citywide virtual meeting was held on Nov.
16, 2021, and the following Council-hosted public meetings were held or have been
scheduled to date:

· Virtual meeting on Dec. 2, 2021 with Council member Guardado;
· In-person coffee talk on Dec. 8, 2021, and virtual meeting on Feb. 1, 2022 with
Council member Stark;
· In-person coffee talk on Jan. 28, 2022 with Council member O'Brien;
· In-person community event on Feb. 12, 2022 with Council member Ansari;
· Virtual coffee chat on Feb. 16, 2022 with Vice Mayor Pastor;
· Virtual meeting scheduled for Feb. 24, 2022 with Council member Garcia.




Page 166

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




Page 167
Attachment A - Vision Zero Draft Resolution

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



RESOLUTION

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE VISION ZERO STRATEGY
FOR THE CITY OF PHOENIX AND INCORPORATE VISION
ZERO GOALS INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE ROAD SAFETY
ACTION PLAN.

__________



follows:

AF
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHOENIX as



WHEREAS, Phoenix aspires to reduce the number of fatal and serious




T
injury crashes on its streets to zero;

WHEREAS, Vision Zero is a City safety policy that takes an ethical

approach toward achieving safety for all road users;

WHEREAS, traffic-related deaths and serious injuries are preventable;



R WHEREAS, the severity of motor vehicle-related crashes can be reduced;

WHEREAS, Phoenix wants to be proactive in reducing fatal and serious




D
injury crashes on our streets;

WHEREAS, transportation safety is everybody's responsibility, including

the City and road users;

WHEREAS, multiple City Departments, that include Street Transportation,

Planning and Development, and Phoenix Police departments, are actively employing

programs to improve safety; and




Page 168
WHEREAS, Vision Zero leverages existing programs and can create new

programs and strategies to help meet the Council's adopted performance measure to

achieve a reduction in the number of fatal and serious injury crashes to zero.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF PHOENIX as follows:

SECTION 1. The Phoenix City Council hereby adopts the Vision Zero

strategy with the goal of eliminating all traffic fatalities for all users on Phoenix




AF
roadways.

SECTION 2. The Phoenix City Council hereby incorporates Vision Zero

goals into the Comprehensive Road Safety Action Plan.



2022.


T
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of February,




MAYOR




R
ATTEST:

_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




D
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:_________________________
___________________________

REVIEWED BY:


________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager
RRH:tml:21-3594:2-16-2022:2300228v1




2 Resolution
Page 169



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Liquid Slide Out Asphalt Release Product - Requirements Contract - RFA 17-
082A - Amendment (Ordinance S-48362)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 144624 with Brody Chemical Inc., to provide additional time to the contract for
the purchase of Liquid Slide Out Asphalt Release Product for the Street Transportation
Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. No additional funds are requested as part of this amendment.

Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the contract to allow additional time for a
new solicitation to be developed.

Brody Chemical, Inc. provides the liquid slide out asphalt release product, Slippery
Wizard, which is used to clean large, specialized asphalt equipment and asphalt tools
utilized by the Street Transportation Department. The asphalt release agent prevents
the asphalt from adhering to equipment and tools and preserves the life of the
equipment.

Contract Term
This amendment will extend the date of the contract term from Feb. 28, 2022 through
Feb. 28, 2023.

Financial Impact
The initial authorization for Contract 144624 was for an expenditure not-to-exceed
$360,000. No additional funds are requested with this amendment as remaining funds
authorized by previous Council action are available.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Liquid Slide Out Asphalt Release Product Contract 144624
(Ordinance S-43245) on Feb. 15, 2017.




Page 170

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




Page 171



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Wastewater Facilities Job Order Contract Program Engineering Support
Services - WS90100001, WS90100094, WS90100100 & WS90100105 (Ordinance S
-48323)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Water Works Engineers, LLC, to provide Engineering Support Services that
include design and construction administration and inspection services for the
Wastewater Facilities Job Order Contract Program Engineering Support Services
project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as
necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and
for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will
not exceed $3.2 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, requests for utility services relating to the development,
design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but are not limited
to, electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable television, railroads
and other modes of transportation. Further request the City Council to grant an
exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the
documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and assumption of liability
provisions that otherwise should be prohibited by Phoenix City Code 42-18. This
authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide engineering support services for the
Wastewater Facilities Job Order Contract (JOC) Program at the 91st Avenue
Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Water Works Engineers, LLC's (Water Works) services include, but are not limited to,
design and construction administration and inspection services for various project
types as identified by City staff for implementation under the JOC program. These
projects differ in size, scope, and complexity. Frequently, the work performed under the
JOC program requires some level of design effort as well as construction
administration and inspection services. Additionally, coordination with appropriate


Page 172

regulatory agencies such as Maricopa County, City of Phoenix Planning &
Development Department, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality and Arizona
Department of Water Resources is necessary.

The 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant is owned by the Sub-Regional
Operating Group (SROG) and operated by the City of Phoenix.

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

Selected Firm
Rank 1: Water Works Engineers, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Wilson Engineers, LLC
Rank 3: GHD, Inc.
Rank 4: Kimley-Horn and Associates
Rank 5: ProTech Services, LLC

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for Water Works will not exceed $3.2 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget using SROG funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG Advisors authorized the project on Jan. 13, 2022., by a vote of 5-0.

The SROG Managers authorized the project on Feb. 9, 2022, by a vote of 5-0.



Page 173

Location
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 174



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Job Order Contract
Engineering Support Services - WS90100001, WS90100094, WS90100100 &
WS90100105 (Ordinance S-48326)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with EIC Engineers, LLC, to provide Electrical Job Order Contract Support Services
that include: design and construction administration and inspection services for the
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Job Order Contract Engineering
Support Services project. Further request to authorize execution of amendments to the
agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure authority as
provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item.
The fee for services will not exceed $2.1 million.

Additionally, request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to take all action
as may be necessary or appropriate and to execute all design and construction
agreements, licenses, permits, and requests for utility services relating to the
development, design, and construction of the project. Such utility services include, but
are not limited to: electrical, water, sewer, natural gas, telecommunications, cable
television, railroads and other modes of transportation. Further request the City
Council to grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code 42-20 to authorize
inclusion in the documents pertaining to this transaction of indemnification and
assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix City
Code 42-18. This authorization excludes any transaction involving an interest in real
property.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to provide design and construction administration and
inspection services for electrical, instrumentation and control replacements or
upgrades at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant.

EIC Engineers, LLC's services include, but are not limited to: design and construction
administration, and inspection services for various projects dealing with electrical,
instrumentation and control equipment being replaced or upgraded as identified by
City staff for implementation under the Job Order Contract (JOC) Program. These
projects differ in size, scope and complexity. Frequently, the work performed under the


Page 175

JOC Program requires some level of design effort as well as construction
administration and inspection services. Additionally, coordination with appropriate
regulatory agencies such as Maricopa County, City of Phoenix Planning and
Development Department, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and Arizona
Department of Water Resources is necessary.

The 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant is owned by the Sub-Regional
Operating Group (SROG) and operated by the City of Phoenix.

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

Selected Firm
Rank 1: EIC Engineers, LLC

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: M3 Engineering and Technology Corporation
Rank 3: Pre-Tech Services, LLC

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for EIC Engineers, LLC will not exceed $2.1 million, including all
subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

Funding is available in the Water Services Department's Capital Improvement Program
budget using SROG funds.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG Advisors authorized the project on Jan. 13, 2022, by a vote of 5-0.

The SROG Managers authorized the project on Feb. 9, 2022, by a vote of 5-0.



Page 176

Location
91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
Council District: 7

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 177



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant Finished Water Pump Station and Chemical
Facility Rehabilitation and Refurbishment - Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction Services - WS85100050, WS85100056 and WS85263300
(Ordinance S-48329)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction
Services for the Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant Finished Water Pump Station and
Chemical Facility Rehabilitation and Refurbishment project. Further request to
authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-
approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to
disburse all funds related to this item. The fee for services will not exceed $300,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to increase the water to be moved from the Deer Valley
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to water infrastructure in north Phoenix to supplement
and provide resiliency for the water system. The City of Phoenix Water Services
Department completed a study to determine how to supplement the water system in
the event there are restrictions placed on Colorado River water delivered through the
Central Arizona Project (CAP). The City of Phoenix treats CAP water at the Union Hills
and Lake Pleasant WTPs which supply water to north Phoenix. If there are restrictions,
both WTPs would be impacted and there would be a shortfall in the areas serviced by
the two WTPs. Improving the pump stations at Deer Valley WTP will help to
supplement water to north Phoenix in that event.

PCL Construction, Inc. (PCL) will begin in an agency support role for Construction
Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services. PCL will assume the risk of delivering the
project through a Guaranteed Maximum Price agreement.

PCL's services include, but are not limited to, being responsible for construction
means and methods, and will be required to solicit bids from prequalified
subcontractors to perform the work, provide detailed cost estimation and knowledge of
marketplace conditions, provide construction phasing and scheduling that will minimize
interruption to City operations, as well as provide alternate systems evaluation and
constructability studies. A Small Business Enterprise goal will be established for this


Page 178

project upon substantial completion of Preconstruction Services and prior to the start
of construction.

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

Selected Firm
Rank 1: PCL Construction, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Rank 3: MGC Contractors, Inc.
Rank 4: J.R. Filanc Construction Company
Rank 5: MWH Constructors, Inc.
Rank 6: Felix Construction Company

Contract Term
The term of the agreement is five years from issuance of the Notice to Proceed. Work
scope has been identified and incorporated into the agreement. Prior to the end of the
term the parties may agree that work may extend past the termination of the
agreement. No additional changes may be executed after the end of the term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for PCL Construction, Inc. will not exceed $300,000, including all
subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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

Location
Deer Valley Water Treatment Plant
Council District: 1




Page 179

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Mario Paniagua,
the Water Services Department, and the City Engineer.




Page 180



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Total Organic Carbon Analyzers Agreement - Request for Award (Ordinance S-
48343)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with YSI, Inc. to provide Total Organic Carbon Analyzers for the purpose of testing
natural organic material that exists in surface water. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. This agreement will not exceed
$400,000.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to support the City of Phoenix Water Services
Department laboratories, which provide on-site support for the drinking water plants,
with the ability to purchase Total Organic Carbon analyzers required to measure
natural organic material that exists in surface water.

YSI's services include, but are not limited to, development and creation of customized
Total Organic Carbon Analyzer equipment, consumables and the maintenance
services required to maintain proper operation.

Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bids procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid and is listed below. The bid was found to be responsive
and responsible.

Selected Bidder
YSI, Inc.: $400,000

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Feb. 16, 2022, for a five-year term.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for YSI, Inc. will not exceed $400,000.



Page 181

Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating Budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 182



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Non-hazardous Liquid Waste Removal Agreement - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-48346)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with MP Environmental Services, Inc., to provide non-hazardous liquid waste removal
services for the purpose of remaining in compliance with the City's stormwater
program and permit. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. This agreement will not exceed $360,000.

Summary
The purpose of this agreement is to provide non-hazardous liquid waste removal on an
as-needed basis. Non-hazardous liquid waste is disposed of from Water Services
Department Water Treatment Plants to an approved facility. This service is necessary
to remain in compliance with the City's stormwater program and permit.

MP Environmental's services include but are not limited to testing, removal,
transporting, and disposal of non-hazardous liquid waste from multiple Water Services
Department Water Treatment Plants.

Procurement Information
The recommendation was made using an Invitation for Bid procurement process in
accordance with City of Phoenix Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Two vendors submitted bids, one bid was received late. One bid was found to be
responsive and responsible.

Selected Bidder
MP Environmental Services, Inc. $19,500

Contract Term
The agreement will begin on or about Feb. 16, 2022, for a six-year aggregate term with
no options to extend.

Financial Impact
The agreement value for MP Environment Services, Inc. will not exceed $360,000.


Page 183


Funding is available in the Water Services Department Operating budget.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Karen Peters and the Water Services
Department.




Page 184



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of Jan. 19, 2022 Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-3-21--Z-111-01-8(7) - Northwest Corner of 75th
Avenue and Baseline Road

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve Planning Hearing
Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on matters heard
by the Planning Hearing Officer on Jan. 19, 2022. This ratification requires formal
action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-3-21--Z-111-01-8(7)
Existing Zoning: R1-8, R-3A, C-1
Acreage: 39.67

Owner: 75 Baseline LLC and Coplen 64 LLC
Applicant: Cassandra Ayres, Beus Gilbert McGroder
Representative: Paul E. Gilbert, Beus Gilbert McGroder

Proposal:
1. Review of conceptual building elevations per Stipulation 2.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Jan. 10, 2022, and recommended approval by a vote of
7-0.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this
case on Jan. 19, 2022, and recommended approval with a modification and an
additional stipulation. Please see Attachment A for a complete list of the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommended stipulations.

Location
Northwest corner of 75th Avenue and Baseline Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A



Page 185

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 186
Attachment A- Stipulations- PHO-3-21--Z-111-01-8(7)

Location: Northwest corner of 75th Avenue and Baseline Road

Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped October 19, 2021 as modified by the following stipulations, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department, and with specific
regard to the following:

a. Multifamily residential development on the property zoned C-1 shall not
exceed 97 units.

2. THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS SHALL BE
IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE ELEVATIONS DATE
STAMPED JANUARY 14, 2022, AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING
STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

3. Conceptual building elevations for single-family, multifamily, and/or
2. commercial development shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Hearing Officer through the public hearing process for stipulation
modification prior to final site plan approval. This is a legislative review for
conceptual purposes only. Specific development standards and
requirements may be determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and the
Planning and Development Department.

STREETS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY

4. Right-of-way totaling 55 feet and a 10-foot sidewalk easement shall be
3. dedicated for the north half of Baseline Road.

5. Right-of-way totaling 30 feet shall be dedicated for the west half of 71st
4. Avenue.

6. Right-of-way totaling 80 feet with a 20-foot sidewalk easement shall be
5. dedicated for 75th Avenue.

7. A 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the northeast
6. and northwest corners of 75th Avenue and Baseline Road.

8. A 21-foot by 21-foot right-of-way triangle shall be dedicated at the
7. northwest corner of 71st Avenue and Baseline Road.

9. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
8. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals as per plans approved



Page 187
by the City. All improvements shall comply with all ADA accessibility
standards

10. The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project Information
9. Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to Mr. Alan Hilty
(602) 262-6193, with the Street Transportation Department. This form is a
requirement of the EPA to meet clean air quality requirements.

LANDSCAPED SETBACKS, OPEN SPACE, TRAILS, FENCING AND
ENTRANCES

11. Each entrance to the subdivision on Baseline Road shall incorporate
10. subdivision entry signage and monumentation into the perimeter wall of the
subdivision. Samples of fencing and entry design concepts shall be
consistent with the Laveen Plan and approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

12. Fence line shown on southern boundary of parcels three and four to
11. substantially conform to zoning exhibit dated April 5, 2002 and stay broken
down into smaller segments that undulate to break up the fence line on
Baseline Road as shown.

13. Walls constructed adjacent to internal trails and open space areas shall be
12. view walls. View walls shall be 100% wrought iron or a combination of 4
feet masonry and 2 feet of wrought iron. This standard is exclusive of the
single-family homes next to 71st Avenue, open space on the southern
portion of the site and the residential developments adjacent to commercial
development.

14. The development shall comply with the Laveen Plan regarding the 50-foot
13. setback along Baseline Road.

15. A 10-foot multi-use trail shall be provided along Baseline Road, and along
14. the northern boundary of the property in conjunction with the property to the
north. An 8-foot multi-use trail shall be provided along the east side of 75th
Avenue. Trails shall be consistent with the approved trail standards as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.

16. A 10-foot shared use path (sidewalk) shall be provided within the 20-foot
15. sidewalk easement along the west side of 71st Avenue as approved by the
Parks and Recreation Department.

17. Passive and/or active recreational amenities shall be provided in the open
16. space area.

18. Pedestrian walkways/connections shall be provided between the multi-
17. family and commercial development.




Page 188
19. Pedestrian walkways/connections within the commercial and multi-family
18. residential developments shall be constructed of materials other than
asphalt. If concrete is used, it must be stamped.

TRANSIT STOPS

20. a. Right-of-way and construction of bus bay (P1257) and transit pad
19. (P1261) shall be constructed at the following locations: Northbound
75th Avenue north of Baseline Road.

b. Right-of-way shall be dedicated at the following location for future
construction of bus bay and transit pad: Westbound Baseline Road
west of 75th Avenue.

21. Right-of-way and construction for transit pads (P1262) shall be constructed
20. at the following locations:

a. Northbound 75th Avenue north of Fremont Road.

b. Southbound 75th Avenue south of Fremont Road.

c. Westbound Baseline Road west of 71st Avenue.

d. Westbound Baseline Road west of 73rd Avenue

COMMERCIAL DESIGN

22. All buildings shall have a similar architectural character. A theme consistent
21. with the Laveen Plan shall be approved by the Planning and Development
Department prior to any preliminary site plan approval. The theme shall
include a minimum of two of the following materials as accent materials:
native stone, burnt adobe, textured brick, wood (when shaded by
overhangs or deep recesses), or exposed aggregate concrete.

23. Rear and side facades and roofline treatment, including color, texture and
22. material shall be "architecturally finished" to minimize visual impact to
adjacent residential areas as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

24. A shade arcade, a minimum of ten feet in width, shall be provided along
23. any building wall with a primary customer entrance.

25. Fifteen percent of surface parking areas within the commercial
24. development, exclusive of the required perimeter landscaping and front
setbacks, shall be landscaped and maintained. Landscaping shall be
dispersed throughout the parking area with the interior width of all planting
islands to be no less than eight feet in width and a minimum of 120 square
feet in area.



Page 189
26. There shall be no more than six parking spaces between any pad structure
25. and Baseline Road.

27. There shall be no overnight parking of recreational vehicles, travel trailers,
26. or similar vehicles.

28. There shall be no permanent installation of mobile containers permitted,
27. exclusive of temporary loading and unloading.

29. Any drive-through shall be screened from view of the perimeter street with a
28. landscaped berm or a combination of a wall and landscaped berm at least
four feet in height.

30. The site plan (commercial development) shall connect the parcels/buildings
29. together with shade protected walkways as approved by the Planning and
Development Department. The pathways shall reflect a common
landscaping theme and include a minimum of two-inch caliper shade trees
placed 20 feet on center exclusive of driveway/roadway crossings.

31. The setbacks shall be landscaped with 2-inch caliper shade trees planted
30. an average of 20 feet on center.

32. Any service station canopies or drive-through canopies shall not exceed 16
31. feet in height measured from the ground to the underside of the canopy.

33. All canopy support pillars shall be a minimum of two feet wide by two feet
32. deep, from the ground to the underside of the canopy, and shall be finished
with the same body and accent materials as the primary building.

34. Electrical and service boxes shall be painted to match the building and/or
33. screened from view.

35. All canopy lighting shall be flush-mounted or recessed, as approved by the
34. Planning and Development Department.

OTHER

36. The property owner shall record documents that disclose to purchasers of
35. property within the development the existence and potential characteristics
of agricultural use property in the vicinity. The form and content of such
documents shall be reviewed and approved by the City Law Department
prior to final site plan approval.

37. The subject site has the potential to contain archaeological resources. The
36. applicant shall submit an archaeological survey for review and approval by
the City Archaeologist (602) 495-0901.

38. The maximum density relating to the R1-8 PRD portion shall not exceed
37. 3.76 du/acre.


Page 190
39. The minimum residential lot width shall be 45 feet for single-family
38. detached residential uses, except that smaller lot widths are allowed on cul-
de-sacs and curves, as approved or modified by the Planning and
Development Department.

40. The minimum amount of open space shall not be less than 12%. (This 12%
39. as indicated on the April 5, 2002 site plan will be "interior" to the overall
residential neighborhood, which includes the contiguous development to
the north. Also, open space is set aside for trail continuity, along the outside
edge, as part of the 12%).

41. Sidewalks, curbs, and streetscapes on residentially zoned property shall be
40. designed in such a way to allow for rural mail delivery.

42. The minimum overhang on any given product with a peaked roof will be 18
41. inches.

43. On the site plan dated April 10, 2002, homes on lots 5-7, 124-128 (Parcel
42. 3), 8-11, 117-126 (Parcel 4) not exceed one-story.

44. Dwelling footprints will be placed in such a manner as to maximize the
43. distance between houses.

45. Building setbacks will be offset along the street frontage.
44.

46. Wrap-around architectural details and materials will be used on both sides
45. of houses along street frontages on corner lots.

47. A variety of at least two different types of roof styles (e.g., flat concrete
46. shingles and “S” concrete shingles) shall be offered in at least two colors.

48. At least one elevation per floor plan shall include either brick or stone
47. accents.

49. All mechanical equipment and dishes larger than 20 inches must be
48. ground-mounted.

50. Lots 111-121, Parcel 4, on the east side of the project shall be a minimum
49. of 10,000 square feet in size as shown on zoning exhibit dated April 5,
2002.

51. For multifamily residential development, the developer shall provide
50. secured bicycle parking as required in Chapter 13, Section 1307.H for
multifamily development, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.




Page 191
52. Any request to change, delete, or modify stipulations shall be presented
51. through the Planning Hearing Officer process and notification shall be given
to the Laveen Village Planning Committee prior to the Planning Hearing
Officer hearing.

53. Front elevations of lots zoned R1-8 and R-3A on the west side of 75th
52. Avenue shall contain a combination of the following architectural
embellishments and detailing: textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses,
variation in window size and location, or overhang canopies, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

54. Front elevations of lots zoned R1-8 and R-3A on the west side of 75th
53. Avenue shall incorporate a minimum of three of the following building
materials: stone veneer, textured brick, stucco, and board and batten
siding, shutters, or decorative gable vents, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

55. Front elevations of lots zoned R1-8 and R3-A on the west side of 75th
54. Avenue shall be comprised of a maximum of 75% stucco or other main
material, and a minimum of 25% accent material.

56. Lots zoned R1-8 and R-3A on the west side of 75th Avenue shall include
55. theme walls which shall include material and textural differences such as
stucco and/or split face block, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

57. Garage doors on lots zoned R1-8 and R-3A on the west side of 75th
56. Avenue shall incorporate decorative embellishments such as added
materials surrounding the door, garage door hardware, or stamped panel
doors, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

58. Attached residential units on the property on the west side of 75th Avenue
57. shall reduce building mass by using a combination of the following
techniques, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Variation in the roofline and form.

b. Use of protected or recessed building entrances.

c. Vertical elements on or in front of expansive blank walls.

d. Use of wall plane offsets and projections.

e. Use of focal points and vertical accents.

f. Inclusion of windows on elevations facing streets and pedestrian
areas.




Page 192
59. Front facades greater than 60 feet in length of attached residential units on
58. the property on the west side of 75th Avenue shall include a minimum of
two of the following elements repeating at appropriate intervals, either
horizontally or vertically: texture and material changes, offsets, reveals,
recessed front entries, archways or projecting ribs, wall plane projections or
recesses, variations in window systems, or vertical landscape features, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

60. Attached residential units on the property on the west side of 75th Avenue
59. shall have pitched, gable, or hipped roof types.

61. Driveways for lots zoned R1-8 and R-3A on the west side of 75th Avenue
60. shall be 22 feet in length as measured from the back of the sidewalk.

62. The maximum building height shall be 25 feet for all single-family detached
61. residential lots along 75th Avenue and the northern boundary of the subject
property.

63. All lots zoned R1-8 and R3-A on the west side of 75th Avenue, which are
62. developed with single-family detached residential units, shall provide
minimum five-foot side yard building setbacks.

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




Page 193



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Modification of Stipulation Request for Ratification of Jan. 19, 2022 Planning
Hearing Officer Action - PHO-3-21--Z-6-04-7 - Southeast Corner of 107th Avenue
and Lower Buckeye Road

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve Planning Hearing
Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on matters heard
by the Planning Hearing Officer on Jan. 19, 2022. This ratification requires formal
action only.

Summary
Application: PHO-3-21--Z-6-04-7
Existing Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 2.29

Owner: QuikTrip Corporation
Applicant/Representative: Lauren Proper Potter

Proposal:
1. Review of commercial elevations per Stipulation 7.
2. Technical corrections to Stipulations 3, 4 and 8.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Estrella Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Jan. 18, 2022, and recommended approval with a
modification by a vote of 5-0.
Planning Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this
case on Jan. 19, 2022, and recommended approval with a modification and additional
stipulations. Please see Attachment A for a complete list of the Planning Hearing
Officer's recommended stipulations.

Location
Southeast corner of 107th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A



Page 194

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 195
Attachment A- Stipulations- PHO-3-21--Z-6-04-7

Location: Southeast corner of 107th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road

Stipulations:

TRAILS AND LANDSCAPING

1. That The development shall conform to the Estrella Village Arterial Street
Landscaping program that specifically provides landscaping requirements for
Lower Buckeye Road defined in the plan as a village parkway.

2. That The developer shall provide a 30-foot wide public trail easement along the
east side of 107th Avenue and along the south side of Lower Buckeye Road
exclusively for public utility easement trail and landscaping unless modified by
the Parks and Recreation Department.

RESIDENTIAL

3. That The single-family development shall be in general conformance to the
site plan date stamped January 15, 2004 as approved or modified by the
PLANNING AND Development Services Department.

4. That A minimum 40 x 40 foot triangular landscape entry area SHALL be
provided on each corner at the main entrance to the residential subdivision to
be located on 107th Avenue as approved or modified by the PLANNING AND
Development Services Department.

5. That Open space amenities shall be located outside of retention areas.

6. That The property owner shall record documents that disclose to purchasers
of the property within the development the existence and potential
characteristics of the Tolleson Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Phoenix
Goodyear Airport. The form and content of such documents shall be reviewed
and approved by the city attorney.

COMMERCIAL

7. That the commercial elevations shall be reviewed and approved through the
Planning Hearing Officer process prior to preliminary site plan approval with
the Development Services Department.

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED DECEMBER 2, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY
THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

8. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE MINIMUM TWO PEDESTRIAN
ACCESS POINTS CONNECTING THE ADJACENT PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-
WAY TO BUILDING ENTRANCES, AS DEPICTED ON THE SITE PLAN


Page 196
DATE STAMPED JANUARY 19, 2022, AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

9. That the commercial site shall be developed with a similar architectural theme.
8. The theme shall assure that the building and canopy colors, elevations,
exterior materials, landscaping, lighting and signage convey a sense of
continuity throughout the development. A master architectural theme shall be
provided before preliminary site plan approval of the first building, as
approved and modified by THE PLANNING AND Development Services
Department.

10. That The development shall conform to the Estrella Village Arterial Street
9. Landscaping program that specifically requires an entry feature on the
southeast corner of 107th Avenue and Lower Buckeye Road designated as a
gateway intersection in the plan.

STREET IMPROVEMENTS

11. That a Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the south half of
10. Lower Buckeye Road.

12. That a Right-of-way totaling 55 feet shall be dedicated for the east half of
11. 107th Avenue.

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

14. That The applicant shall complete and submit the Developer Project
13. Information Form for the MAG Transportation Improvement Program to the
Street Transportation Department. This form is a requirement of the EPA to
meet clean air quality requirements.

15. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT AND LANDSCAPE A 14-FOOT-
WIDE MEDIAN ISLAND ALONG LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD FROM 107TH
AVENUE TO THE EXISTING MEDIAN TO THE EAST, AS APPROVED BY
THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENTS.

16. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT A MINIMUM 5-FOOT-WIDE
DETACHED SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOWER BUCKEYE
ROAD TO BE DETACHED WITH A MINIMUM 10-FOOT-WIDE LANDSCAPE
STRIP LOCATED BETWEEN THE BACK OF CURB AND SIDEWALK.
TREES PLANTED IN THE LANDSCAPE AREA ARE TO BE PLACED NEAR
THE SIDEWALK TO PROVIDE THERMAL COMFORT FOR PEDESTRIANS,
AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL CONSTRUCT ONE BUS STOP PAD ALONG
EASTBOUND LOWER BUCKEYE ROAD EAST OF 107TH AVENUE. THE


Page 197
BUS STOP PAD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO CITY OF
PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1260 WITH A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 10
FEET AND SHALL BE SPACED FROM THE INTERSECTION OF 107TH
AVENUE ACCORDING TO CITY OF PHOENIX STANDARD DETAIL P1258,
AS APPROVED OR MODIFIED BY THE PUBLIC TRANSIT DEPARTMENT.

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.




Page 198



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - 17 North - PLAT 210084 - Southeast Corner of I-17 and Dynamite
Boulevard

Plat: 210084
Project: 20-2966
Name of Plat: 17 North
Owner: James F. McDonald, Trustee of the McDonald Family Trust; Fred A. Bishop, a
single man; Fred A. Bishop and Victoria A. Fodale, husband and wife; Margie Lauree
Wick, Trustee of the Wick Family Trust; and The Pentad CO-OP, a joint venture.
Engineer: James A. Loftis, RLS
Request: A 272 Lot Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Feb. 3, 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 southeast corner of I-17 and Dynamite Boulevard.
Council District: 2

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 199



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Alta Bluewater - PLAT 210053 - Northwest Corner of Camelback Road
and Arizona State Route 51 Highway

Plat: 210053
Project: 19-4369
Name of Plat: Alta Bluewater
Owner: Alta Bluewater, LLC
Engineer: Brian J. Diehl, RLS
Request: A 1 Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 22, 2021
Final Plat requires Formal Action Only

Summary
Staff requests that the above plat be approved by the City Council and certified by the
City Clerk. Recording of the plat dedicates the streets and easements as shown to the
public.

Location
Generally located at the northwest corner of Camelback Road and the Arizona State
Route 51 Highway.
Council District: 6

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




Page 200



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Final Plat - Bethany at 14th - PLAT 210093 - South of Bethany Home Road and
West of 14th Place

Plat: 210093
Project: 20-1702
Name of Plat: Bethany at 14th
Owner: Silver Stage Capital, LLC
Engineer: John Hook, RLS
Request: An 8 Lot Residential Subdivision Plat
Reviewed by Staff: January 18, 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 south of Bethany Home Road and west of 14th Place.
Council District: 6

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




Page 201



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Waiver of Federal Patent Easement - ABND 210058 - 31st Avenue and Pinnacle
Vista Drive (Resolution 21993)

Abandonment: ABND 210058
Project: 20-2345
Applicant: K. Hovnanian Homes
Request: 33-foot Federal patent easement reservations located on the northeast
corner of 31st Avenue and Pinnacle Vista Drive and 17-foot right-of-way dedicated on
APN: 205-01-007C.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Dec. 28, 2021

Summary
ABND 210058 entails a waiver of federal patent easement and an abandonment of
right-of-way. While heard as part of the same abandonment request, the resolutions
need to be written differently and therefore two separate requests to City Council exist
for the same case (this one, and LN 21-3561). This request is for the waiver of the
City's interest in the federal patent easement. Both resolutions are to be recorded
together with the Maricopa County Recorder on the same day, at the same time. The
sequence of the recording of the two resolutions is not significant.

Location
31st Avenue and Pinnacle Vista Drive.
Council District: 1

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this federal patent easement
waiver, although filing fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 202



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Abandonment of Right-of-Way - ABND 210058 - 31st Avenue and Pinnacle Vista
Drive (Resolution 21994)

Abandonment: ABND 210058
Project: 20-2345
Applicant: K. Hovnanian Homes
Request: 33-foot Federal patent easement reservations located on the northeast
corner of 31st Avenue and Pinnacle Vista Drive and 17-foot right-of-way dedicated on
APN: 205-01-007C.
Date of Decision/Hearing: Dec. 28, 2021

Summary
ABND 210058 entails a waiver of federal patent easement and an abandonment of
right-of-way. While heard as part of the same abandonment request, the resolutions
need to be written differently and therefore two separate requests to City Council exist
for the same case (this one, and LN 21-3531). This request is for the abandonment of
the dedicated right-of-way. Both resolutions are to be recorded together with the
Maricopa County recorder on the same day, at the same time. The sequence of the
recording of the two resolutions is not significant.

Location
31st Avenue and Pinnacle Vista Drive.
Council District: 1

Financial Impact
None. No consideration fee was required as a part of this right-of-way abandonment,
although filing fees were paid.

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 203



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Extend Conservation Easement for 612 N. 5th Ave. (Ordinance S-48339)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend the Conservation
Easement on 612 N. 5th Ave. to extend the term an additional 15 years.

Summary
In 2007, the property owner, RAN Holdings, LLC, received a $10,000 Exterior
Rehabilitation grant from the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation (HP) Office to repair
and replace windows, repair masonry, and replace the roof of the historic duplex at the
front of this property. In exchange for the grant funds, the City received a conservation
easement on the property, which remains in effect until June 26, 2022. The
conservation easement requires that the historic character of the property be
preserved and that the City review and approve exterior changes to the property.

In August of 2021, the property owner's representative filed a Certificate of
Appropriateness application to allow the construction of a new detached three-story,
four-unit building with a rooftop deck and roof screening structure at the rear of the
subject property. On September 23, 2021, the HP Hearing Officer approved the
application subject to the stipulation that the building height be reduced to two stories
to maintain similarity in height to historic structures in the vicinity. The applicant
appealed the decision to HP Commission, which heard the case on October 18, 2021,
and continued the hearing to November 15, 2021 and December 20, 2021. At the
December hearing, the HP Commission voted 5-1 to modify the HP Hearing Officer's
decision and approve the three-story structure with rooftop garden in conjunction with
the proposed recording of an extension of the current conservation easement for an
additional 15 years.

Prior to the December 20, 2021 hearing, the property owner's representative delivered
to the City an amendment to the deed of conservation easement signed by the
property owner. The amendment extends the term of the conservation easement 15
years so it will expire on June 26, 2037. Subject to City Council approval, the
amendment will be signed by staff and recorded with the Maricopa County Recorder.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval of this item on Dec. 20,


Page 204

2021.
The Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee recommended unanimous
approval on Jan. 26, 2022.

Location
612 N. 5th Ave.
Council District: 7

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




Page 205
ATTACHMENT A




Page 206
Page 207
Page 208
Page 209
Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
ATTACHMENT B




WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
Planning and Development Department
Historic Preservation Office
200 W. Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Exempt under A.R.S. § 11-1134 (A) (2)



FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEED OF FACADE CONSERVATION EASEMENT

This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEED OF FACADE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
(the "Amendment") is made as of the _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _., 202_, by and between Ran
Holdings L.L.P., an Arizona limited liability partnership (the "Property Owner"), whose
principal address is P.O. Box 877, Phoenix, Arizona 85001 and the City of Phoenix, a municipal
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Arizona (the "City"). The
Property Owner and the City are sometimes referred to collectively herein as the "Parties" and
individually as a "Party."

RECITALS

A. The City is authorized under Arizona's Uniform Conservation Act, Arizona
Revised Statutes, Sections 33-271 through 276, inclusive (collectively, as and if amended, the
"Act") to accept easements to protect property significant in Arizona history and culture for the
education of the general public.

B. The City is a municipal corporation whose responsibilities include the protection
of the public interest in preserving architecturally significant structures within the City of
Phoenix.

C. The Property Owner is the owner in fee simple of that certain property located at
612-614 North 5th Avenue, Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona, which is more particularly
described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof ("Owner's Parcel").

D. The Property Owner and the City are parties to that Deed of Facade Conservation
Easement, which was executed by the Parties and recorded in the Office of the Recorder of
Maricopa County, Arizona at 2008-0803224 ("Original Easement"), to protect an existing
historic structure on Owner's Parcel.




Page 213
E. The Original Easement was granted to the City for a fifteen (15) year term and is
set to expire on June 26, 2022.

F. The Property Owner is willing to extend the term of the Original Easement in
order to erect a proposed three-story structure behind the historic structure on the Property.

G. The Parties recognize timing issues associated with the Property Owner granting
an extension of the existing term of the Original Easement before the Property Owner has
received the ordinary and necessary approvals from the City of Phoenix to erect a new
three-story structure on the Owner's Parcel (including Historic Preservation Commission
approval, Zoning Adjustment approval, Site Plan approval, and building permit approval) and
have therefore added a condition precedent to the extension of the Original Easement to address
that timing issue.

AGREEMENT


NOW, THEREFORE, the Pat1ies agree as follows:

1. The Parties hereby amend the Original Agreement to extend the Term of the Original
Easement granted in Section 1 of the Original Agreement through and including June 26,
203 7 ("Easement Extension"), subject to the condition precedent stated in Section 2
herein and subject to the same terms as stated in the Original Agreement (except for the
expiration date, which shall be replaced by the expiration date stated in this Section 1 of
this Amendment, and except as stated herein).

2. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and as a condition precedent to the effectiveness,
activation, and validity of the Easement Extension, the Easement Extension shall not
become effective unless and until the moment the City grants approval of a pre-slab
inspection for a three-story structure on Owner's Parcel ("Pre-Slab Inspection Approval")
at which time the Easement Extension shall immediately become fully effective.

3. Following the Pre-Slab Inspection Approval, and upon written request of either of the
Parties, the Parties shall work together to draft and record a notice acknowledging the
Easement Extension has become effective and legally operative.

4. This Amendment, and the Easement Extension if and when it becomes effective, shall
run with the land and shall inure to the benefit of the Parties and each of their respective
successors and assigns.

5. The Parties hereby ratify all other terms, conditions, covenants, representations,
warranties and indemnities set forth in the Original Agreement as modified by this
Amendment.

6. Capitalized terms used, but not defined, herein, shall have the same meanings ascribed to
such term in the Original Agreement.




Page 214
7. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

[Signature Pages to Follow]




Page 215
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment through their
representatives duly authorized to execute this document and bind their respective entities to the
terms and obligations herein contained on the day and year first written above.

PROPERTY OWNER
Ran Holdings L.L.P, an A rizona
Limited Liability Partnership

Signature_ _ C:___
_ (J.'~ll_v_
Name_ _ / _._,
(\'-'-'
A '--'--
N_ 6=----,_,
V sy....>-
t




STATE OF i¼L.c.M..0- )
) ss:
COUNTY OF:Y\1().J,1 C°f°'- )

The t;s:>.r egoing il\strument was acknowledged before me this 15-W- day of ~C..tn'Ibe..r ,
202__1_, by 2:'i oJ \"\0.."1 as'f\'\t~he..r -4\1p..\l\. ~ of Ran Holdings L.L.P.,
an Arizona limited liability partnership, on behalf of said limited u;Jfty partnership.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.

~VV¼.~
Notary Public
My Commission Expires:




ANN M. CORE
Notary Public • State of Arizona
MARICOPA COUNTY
My Commission Expires
February 16, 2022_




Page 216
CITY
CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal
corporation
Jeff Barton, City Manager



By:
Michelle Dodds
Historic Preservation Officer
ATTEST:




City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:




City Attorney

STATE OF ARIZONA )
) ss.
County of Maricopa )

This instrument was acknowledged before me this _ _ _ day of _ _ _ _ _ _, 20 ,
by Michelle Dodds, Historic Preservation Officer of the CITY OF PHOENIX, a municipal
corporation, on behalf of the City of Phoenix.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereunto set my hand and official seal.



Notary Public
My Commission Expires:




Page 217
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
612-614 North 5th Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

Lot 8, Block F, BENNETT PLACE, according to the plat of record in the office of the County
Recorder of Maricopa County, Arizona, in Book 2 of Maps, page 43.




Page 218



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application PHO-4-21--Z-47-
19-7- Approximately 800 Feet South of the Southwest Corner of 59th Avenue and
Baseline Road (Ordinance G-6963)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to approve the Planning
Hearing Officer's recommendation without further hearing by the City Council on
matters heard by the Planning Hearing Officer on Jan. 19, 2022.

Summary
Application: PHO-4-21--Z-47-19-7
Existing Zoning: C-2 HGT/WVR
Acreage: 8.16

Owner: Laveen Baseline LLC
Applicant: Laveen Baseline LLC
Representative: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell LLC

Proposal:
1. Review of site plan, landscape plan, and elevations per Stipulation 24.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation: The Laveen Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Jan. 10, 2022 and recommended approval by a vote of
7-0.
PHO Action: The Planning Hearing Officer heard this case on Jan. 19, 2022 and
recommended approval with a modification and additional stipulations. See
Attachment A for the full list of Planning Hearing Officer recommended stipulations.

Location
Approximately 800 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline
Road.
Council District: 7
Parcel Address: N/A




Page 219

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Manager Alan Stephenson and the Planning and
Development Department.




Page 220
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STIPULATIONS APPLICABLE TO
REZONING APPLICATION Z-47-19-7 PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY
ORDINANCE G-6659.

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning stipulations applicable located approximately

800 feet south of the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Baseline Road in a

portion of Section 6, Township 1 South, Range 2 East, as described more specifically

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

STIPULATIONS:

Overall Site

1. The development shall be in General Conformance to the Conceptual Master
Site Plan date stamped October 23, 2019, with specific regard to the site
locations, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. All parking areas adjacent to public streets, excluding the freeway, shall be
screened by a combination of decorative screen walls and a minimum 3-foot
high landscaped mound/berm along the perimeter streets, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

3. All sidewalks adjacent to public streets shall be detached with a minimum 5-
foot wide continuous landscape area located between the sidewalk and back
of curb; and shall include minimum 3-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk
shade trees (limbed-up a minimum of 10-feet clear from finish grade), planted
25 feet on center or in equivalent groupings; and minimum 5-gallon shrubs



Page 221
with a maximum mature height of 2 feet providing 75 percent live cover, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department. If there is limited
right-of-way along the Baseline Road frontage requiring a modified cross
section, an attached sidewalk design may be considered, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

4. The developer shall provide clearly defined, accessible pathways at vehicular
crossings, constructed of decorative pavement that visually contrasts with the
adjacent parking and drive aisle surfaces for internal drive aisles and
accessways, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) to the City for this
development for review and approval by the Street Transportation Department
(except for the Site A, Harkins) prior to the submittal of preliminary site plans.
Additional right-of-way and street improvements may be required following TIS
review. Phasing of off-site improvements must be consistent with the TIS
recommendations. Phased street improvements will require the installation of
pavement transition tapers, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

6. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
development required for each phase with paving, curb, gutter, minimum 5-
foot wide 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.

7. Open irrigation facilities are to be piped outside of right-of-way and shown on
the preliminary site plan, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. All multi-use trails and shared use paths shall be shaded a minimum of 50
percent with 2-inch minimum caliper, large canopy shade trees, located 5 to 8
feet from the edge of the trail, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

9. The right-of-way shall be dedicated, if required, and a bus pad (detail P1260 or
P1262) constructed at the following locations, unless otherwise modified by
the Planning and Development Department and Public Transit Department:

a. Eastbound Baseline Road east of 63rd Avenue. Pad shall be spaced
from the intersection of 63rd Avenue and Baseline Road according to

b. Three bus stop pads shall be located along Southbound 59th Avenue.

10. 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.


Page 222
11. 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.

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.

Site A

14. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan and
13. elevations date stamped October 23, 2019, as modified by the following
stipulations and approved by the Planning and Development Department.

15. The maximum building height shall be limited to 56 feet.
14.

16. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for buildings
15. over 30 feet in height.

17. A minimum of one clearly defined pedestrian connection shall be provided
16. from Site A to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area Conveyance
Channel with one pedestrian scale amenity (benches, tables, etc.) provided
within close proximity of the trail, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

18. A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum 6 feet wide shall
17. be provided from the west side of Site B through Site A to the proposed
buildings. The parking lot shall be designed to have minimal vehicular drive
crossings through these pathways. These pathways shall have a minimum 50
percent shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper trees located in minimum
5-foot wide landscape areas and/or an architectural shading element, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

19. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
18. each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 223
20. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
19. consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped median
between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern boundary of
Site A, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Asphalt
pavement transition tapers are required between ultimate and interim street
conditions, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

21. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Shared Use Path (SUP) along
20. the west side of 59th Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with
the improvements on 59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance
Channel, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

22. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
21. south side of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

Site B (Retail/Restaurant)

23. The maximum building height shall be limited to 30 feet within 150 feet of 59th
22. Avenue and 45 feet for the remainder of Site B.

24. There shall be a 150-foot stepback provided from 59th Avenue for building
23. over 30 feet in height.

25. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations,
24. shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:

THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN DATE STAMPED DECEMBER 3, 2021,
AS MODIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, WITH SPECIFIC
REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING, AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING
AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the commercial corner
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:

A. A minimum of two pedestrian pathways that are a minimum of 6
(i) feet wide shall be provided from 59th Avenue through the site to
connect to buildings and the pedestrian pathways at Site A. The
parking lot shall be designed to have minimal vehicular drive
crossings through these pathways. These pathways shall have a
minimum 50 percent shade provided by 2-inch minimum caliper
trees located in minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas and/or an
architectural shading element.



Page 224
B. A minimum of two clearly defined pedestrian connections shall be
(ii) provided to connect with the trail along the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel with two pedestrian scale amenities (open
space, benches, tables, etc.) provided within close proximity of the
trail.

26. THE DEVELOPMENT SHALL BE IN GENERAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE
ELEVATIONS DATE STAMPED DECEMBER 3, 2021, AS MODIFIED BY THE
FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS, WITH SPECIFIC REGARD TO THE
FOLLOWING, AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

A. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
b. promote shade.

B. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
c. detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.

C. Accent building materials such as: native stone, burnt adobe, textured
d. brick, wood (when shaded by overhangs or deep recesses), slump block,
ceramic tile (matte finish), stucco and/or exposed aggregate concrete
shall be used on buildings or otherwise demonstrate that the architectural
style is consistent with prior phases of the project and development in the
area.

27. Drive-through restaurant pick-up windows shall be architecturally integrated in
25. proportion, color, material and texture to the building it serves by providing
awnings or architecturally integrated structures for weather protection, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

28. Drive-through restaurant facilities shall provide a minimum of 250 square feet
26. of outdoor seating areas, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

29. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by 2-
27. inch minimum caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

30. A minimum of two inverted-U bicycle racks (4 spaces) shall be provided for
28. each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

31. A minimum of 30 percent of the linear frontage of the buildings, that has main
29. public entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting materials to


Page 225
thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent shading of area
at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

32. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
30. consistent with the Street Classification Map, including landscaped median
between the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel and the southern boundary of
Site B, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. Asphalt
pavement transition tapers are required between ultimate and interim street
conditions, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.

33. The developer shall construct a 10-foot Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
31. Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements on
59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.

34. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
32. south side of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

Site C (Multifamily)

35. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation, and elevations
33. shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:

a. Promoting pedestrian connections with the adjacent commercial
development through sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall
connectivity including:

b. A minimum of three evenly dispersed pedestrian connection points to the
commercial development to the north. This pedestrian connection shall
be clearly defined and minimize vehicular conflicts.

c. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.

d. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

e. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.

36. There shall be a minimum of 10 percent common area open space provided
34. onsite, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 226
37. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by a
35. minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

38. The developer shall construct the west half street of 59th Avenue, as
36. consistent with the Street Classification Map, including the landscaped median
for the full extent of Site C, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are required between ultimate
and interim street conditions, as approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

39. The developer shall construct a 10-foot wide Shared Use Path (SUP) on 59th
37. Avenue in lieu of the required sidewalk, consistent with the improvements on
59th Avenue north of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel.

40. The developer shall provide conduit plan and junction boxes at 59th Avenue
38. and South Mountain Avenue on project site for future traffic signal equipment
and all work related to the construction or reconstruction of the conduit runs
and junction box installation shall be the responsibility of the Developer, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Site D (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park North of the LACC)

41. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
39. shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:

a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:

(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.

(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas
shall provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard
games, etc.) each.

b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.

c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window




Page 227
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.

d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.

42. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
40. four-story building that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

43. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
41. percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

44. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
42. minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

45. A minimum of six inverted-U bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
43. each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

46. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
44. entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting materials to
thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent shading of area
at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

47. The developer shall protect in place the shared-use path and 20-foot wide
45. public trail/sidewalk easement along the north side of the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

48. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
46. along the west side of the 202 Loop or adjacent to 63rd Avenue, whichever
provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan approval.
Developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide shared-use path (SUP) within the
easement as indicated in section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

49. A minimum 10-foot public multi-use trail shall be constructed within a 30-foot
47. easement in accordance with MAG supplemental detail 429 along the south
side of Baseline Road to connect to the trails to the east and west, as
approved by the Parks and Recreation Department.




Page 228
50. The developer shall dedicate 60 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits for
48. the south half of Baseline Road, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

51. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the full
49. parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, as approved by the
Street Transportation Department.

52. The developer shall dedicate 40 feet of right-of-way for the full parcel limits for
50. the east half of 63rd Avenue and improvements as required by the TIS, as
approved by the Planning and Development. Asphalt pavement transition
tapers are required between ultimate and interim street conditions, as
approved by the Street Transportation Department.

53. The developer shall dedicate a 25-foot by 25-foot right-of-way triangle at the
51. southeast corner of Baseline Road and 63rd Avenue, as approved the
Planning and Development Department.

Site E (Commerce Park/General Commerce Park South of the LACC)

54. The site plan, landscape plan showing pedestrian circulation and elevations
52. shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Hearing Officer through the
public hearing process prior to preliminary site plan approval for conceptual
review of the applicable provisions of the goals and policies of the Southwest
Growth Study which shall include the following:

a. Promoting the overall pedestrian circulation within the development
through wide sidewalks, detached sidewalks and overall connectivity
including:

(i) A minimum of two pedestrian connections to the Laveen Area
Conveyance Channel.

(ii) There shall be an employee open space area provided adjacent to
the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel. The open space areas
shall provide a minimum of one amenity (tables, benches, yard
games, etc.) each.

b. Arcades and overhangs shall be incorporated into the buildings to
promote shade.

c. All building facades shall contain architectural embellishments and
detailing such as textural changes, pilasters, offsets, recesses, window
fenestration, shadow boxes and overhead/canopies at least every 50
linear feet.




Page 229
d. Ensuring architectural style is consistent with prior phases of the project
and development in the area.

55. There shall be a minimum of one exterior employee balcony provided on each
53. four-story building that is a minimum of 12 feet in depth and a minimum of 200
square feet in size, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

56. The glazing on all building windows shall have a maximum reflectivity of 20
54. percent, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

57. A minimum of 25 percent of the surface parking areas shall be shaded by
55. minimum 2-inch caliper, large canopy single-trunk shade trees, located within
minimum 5-foot wide landscape areas, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

58. A minimum of six inverted-U bicycle racks (12 spaces) shall be provided for
56. each building on site, located near building entries, and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

59. A minimum of 30 percent of building linear frontage, that has main public
57. entries oriented towards parking areas, shall be provided with planting.
Planting areas shall be sized to provide adequate area for planting materials to
thrive. Trees and shrubs shall be sized to provide 30 percent shading of area
at maturity, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

60. The developer shall dedicate a 30-foot-wide public trail/sidewalk easement
58. along the west side of the 202 Loop Freeway or adjacent to 63rd Avenue,
whichever provides greater connectivity, at the time of preliminary site plan
approval. Developer shall construct a 10-foot wide shared-use path (SUP)
within the easement per Section 429 of the City of Phoenix MAG Supplement,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

61. The developer shall construct a 10-foot-wide Multi-Use Trail (MUT) along the
59. south side of the Laveen Area Conveyance Channel, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

62. The developer shall dedicate a minimum of 40 feet of right-of-way for the full
60. parcel limits for the east half of 63rd Avenue. Additional right-of-way
dedications and improvements as required by the TIS, and as approved by the
Street Transportation Department. Asphalt pavement transition tapers are
required between ultimate and interim street conditions, excepting the frontage
of APN 300-020-017C, as approved by the Street Transportation Department.




Page 230
SECTION 2. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district granted pursuant to Ordinance G-6659 this portion of the rezoning is now

subject to the stipulations approved pursuant to Ordinance G-6659 and as modified in

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

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

until all the stipulations have been met.

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

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

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

validity of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 16th day of February,

2022.




________________________________
MAYOR



ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:



Page 231
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A - Legal Description (1 Page)
B - Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 232
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR PHO-4-21--Z-47-19-7
A PORTION OF LOT 2 ACCORDING TO THE LOT COMBINATION MAP RECORDED IN
BOOK 1309 OF MAPS, PAGE 41, OFFICIAL RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY,
LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 5 AND THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 1 SOUTH, RANGE 2 EAST OF THE
GILA & SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 2;

THENCE NORTH 67 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 60.00
FEET TO A POINTON THE MONUMENT LINE OF 59TH AVENUE;

THENCE SOUTH 22 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 01 SECOND EAST, ALONG SAID
MONUMENT LINE OF 59TH AVENUE, A DISTANCE OF 620.15 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 67 DEGREES 50 MINUTES 59 SECONDS WEST, DEPARTING SAID
MONUMENT LINE, A DISTANCE OF 216.53 FEET TO A POINT OF CURVATURE TO THE
RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 540.00 FEET;

THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 22 DEGREES 09 MINUTES 01 SECONDS, A DISTANCE OF 208.76 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 90 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
279.08 FEET;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 00 MINUTES 00 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF
561.04 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 AND TO THE POINT OF
CURVATURE OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE TO THE RIGHT, WHOSE RADIUS BEARS
NORTH 11 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 11 SECONDS WEST, A DISTANCE OF 2,600.00 FEET;

THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID NON-TANGENT CURVE AND SAID NORTH LINE,
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 09 DEGREES 02 MINUTES 01 SECONDS, A
DISTANCE OF 409.93 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 355,607 SQUARE FEET OR 8.164 ACRES, MORE OR LESS.




Page 233
Page 234



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
(CONTINUED FROM JAN. 5, 2022 AND REMANDED BACK TO PLANNING
COMMISSION ON FEB. 3, 2022 BY CITY COUNCIL ON JAN. 26, 2022) - Public
Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Amend City Code - Rezoning Application Z-69
-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) - Approximately 300 Feet West of the Northwest Corner
of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue (Ordinance G-6943)

Request to hold a public hearing on a proposal to amend the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, by adopting Rezoning
Application Z-69-20-6 and rezone the site from R-O (Residential Office - Restricted
Commercial District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to allow multifamily
residential.

Summary
Current Zoning: R-O (Residential Office - Restricted Commercial District)
Proposed Zoning: PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Acreage: 0.89 acres
Proposal: Multifamily residential

Owner: East Maryland, LLC
Applicant: AUTEM Development
Representative: John Oliver and William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco, PA

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this case on May
4, 2021 for information only. The Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard
this case on Oct. 5, 2021 and recommended denial, by a vote of 8-3.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Nov. 4, 2021 and continued
the case to Dec. 2, 2021. The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 2, 2021
and recommended approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report with modified and
additional stipulations, by a vote of 8-1.
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission recommendation on Dec. 9, 2021.
CC Action: The City Council heard this case on Jan. 5 and Jan. 26, 2022, and
remanded the case back to the Planning Commission due to a sign posting (public
notification) error.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Feb. 3, 2022 and


Page 235

recommended approval, per the staff memo dated Feb. 3, 2022, with a modified
stipulation, by a vote of 8-0.

Location
Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland
Avenue.
Council District: 6
Parcel Address: 1536 and 1538 E. Maryland Ave.

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




Page 236
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DISTRICT
CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED HEREIN
(CASE Z-69-20-6) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.89-acre site located approximately 300 feet

west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue in a portion of Section

9, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A”, is

hereby changed from “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District) to

“PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B”.

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 237
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped December 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the
following: Hearing draft submittal: December 2, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 7: Update the reference to proposed number of units to 15.

c. Page 8, Land Use Plan: Update the reference to proposed number of units
to 15.

d. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update the maximum density to
15 dwellings units and 16.85 du/ac.

e. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update guest parking to 0.46
spaces per residential unit to reflect minimum of 7 guest parking spaces.

f. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.h.: Replace with the following:

Bicycle parking will be installed where indicated on the attached site plan
(Exhibit 9). A bicycle repair station shall be provided on the north end of
the site in close proximity to the bicycle storage area shown on Exhibit 9.

g. Page 14, Section H.2. Circulation: Update the paragraph to reduce
number of units to 15 and to describe the layout as proposed in the site
plan in Exhibit 9.

h. Page 15, Comparative Zoning Table: Update the number of units, density
ratio, and minimum guest parking on PUD zoning column.

i. Page 36, Exhibit 9 (Conceptual Site Plan): Remove the reference to the
bicycle repair station.

j. Page 4, Exhibits: Delete reference to Exhibit 10.




Page 238
k. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.: Modify the provision that
requires the southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors
and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue, and also the stoops
and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue.

l. Page 28: Revise Exhibit 6 (Streetside Scale Context Exhibit) to be
consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

m. Pages 33-34: Revise Exhibit 8 (Conceptual Rendering) to be consistent
with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.

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

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

6. The developer shall provide on-site trash and recycling pick up, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.


Page 239
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 1st day of December,

2021.



________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_____________________________
Jeffrey J. Barton, City Manager
Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 240
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-69-20-6


THAT PART OF FARM UNIT F (OR THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER), SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 9, WHICH POINT IS 336.78 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE NORTH 355.33 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST 162.78 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 355.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING:

EXCEPT THE NORTH 120.00 FEET.

AND ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33.00 FEET.

THIS DESCRIPTION ENCOMPASSES THE PROPERTIES RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 2013-0016773 AND 2012-0878219 OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 161-08-050C




Page 241
Page 242
Attachment B




Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021

Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
General Plan Land Use Map
Residential 3.5 to 5 dwelling units per acre
Designation
Street Map Maryland
Minor collector 33-foot north half street
Classification Avenue
CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; OPPORTUNITY SITES; LAND
USE PRINCIPLE: Promote and encourage compatible development and
redevelopment with a mix of housing types in neighborhoods close to
employment centers, commercial areas, and where transit or transportation
alternatives exist.
The proposal seeks to convert a site that currently houses two small offices into a
single-family attached residential development, which will provide more housing options
for residents in the area along a popular bicycle thoroughfare and in close proximity to
bus stops to the east, on 16th Street. The site is also close to the State Route 51
freeway to the east and to commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.




Page 243
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUE; COMPLETE STREETS; DESIGN
PRINCIPLE: In order to balance a more sustainable transportation system,
development should be designed to include increased amenities for transit,
pedestrian and bicyclists such as shade, water, seating, bus shelters, wider
sidewalks, bike racks, pedestrian scale lighting and way-finding.
The PUD (Planned Unit Development) seeks to improve the pedestrian environment
along its Maryland Avenue street frontage with robust tree shade cover, a pedestrian-
scale entrance into the community with bench seating, bicycle parking, bicycle repair
station, decorative way-finding signage, pedestrian-scale lighting, and a decorative
water feature. These elements will help create a pedestrian-friendly environment along
the front of the development and will support users of the existing bicycle route along
Maryland Avenue.
CELEBRATE OUR DIVERSE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS CORE
VALUE; CERTAINTY & CHARACTER; DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Provide high quality
urban design and amenities that reflect the best of urban living at an appropriate
village scale.
The proposed PUD development narrative sets forth enhanced design guidelines for
both the architectural style and the site layout for the development. In addition to the
pedestrian-scale amenities provided along the Maryland Avenue streetscape, extensive
requirements for building mass articulation, balconies, a shaded community corridor,
and high-quality building materials, will ensure superior urban design in this part of the
Camelback East Village.
BUILD THE SUSTAINABLE DESERT CITY CORE VALUE; TREES AND SHADE;
DESIGN PRINCIPLE: Integrate trees and shade into the design of new
development and redevelopment projects throughout Phoenix.
The proposed PUD narrative includes landscaping standards that exceed those set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance to provide robust tree shade coverage on the pedestrian
realm.


Applicable Plan, Overlays, and Initiatives
Housing Phoenix Plan – See Background Item No. 7.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan – See Background Item No. 8.

Tree and Shade Master Plan – See Background Item No. 9.

Complete Streets Guiding Principles – See Background Item No. 10.

Zero Waste PHX – See Background Item No. 11.




Page 244
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Offices R-O
Single-family residences,
North R1-6, R-3, P-1
surface parking lot
South (Across
Single-family residences R1-6
Maryland Avenue)
East Offices and retail R-5, C-1
West Condominiums R-3

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone
a 0.89-acre site located
approximately 300 feet
west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and
Maryland Avenue from
R-O (Residential Office –
Restricted Commercial
District) to PUD (Planned
Unit Development) to
allow a multifamily
residential development.




Aerial Map
Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Page 245
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


2. The site has a General
Plan Land Use Map
designation of Residential
3.5 to 5 dwelling units per
acre. The same
designation exists to the
north, east and south of
the site. West of the site
is the Residential 10 to 15
dwelling units per acre
designation. To the
southeast of the site,
across Maryland Avenue,
is the Residential 15+
dwelling units per acre
designation. Further to
the east of the site, east of General Plan Land Use Map
16th Street, is the State Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
Route 51 freeway, which is
designated Transportation. The proposal is not consistent with the Residential 3.5
to 5 dwelling units per acre designation. However, as the site is under 10 acres, a
General Plan Amendment is not required.
EXISTING CONDITIONS & SURROUNDING ZONING
3. The site is currently
zoned R-O (Residential
Office – Restricted
Commercial District) and
is occupied by two
residential-scale offices.
North of the site are
single-family residences
zoned R1-6 (Single-
Family Residence
District) and R-2
(Multifamily Residence
District); and a surface
parking lot zoned P-1
(Parking District –
Passenger Automobile
Parking, Limited).
East of the site are offices Zoning Map
and miscellaneous retail. Source: City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department




Page 246
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


The property directly adjacent to the east is zoned R-5 (Multifamily Residence
District), and the property further to the east, on the northwest corner of 16th Street
and Maryland Avenue, is zoned C-1 (Neighborhood Retail District). West of the site
are condominiums zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence District), and to the south,
across Maryland Avenue, are single-family residences zoned R1-6 (Single-Family
Residence District).

The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present
to both the east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling
between those permitted on the two adjacent properties. This will create an
appropriate transition in permitted maximum density to the higher densities closer to
16th Street.
PROPOSAL
4. The proposal was developed utilizing the PUD zoning designation. The Planned
Unit Development (PUD) is intended to create a built environment that is superior to
that produced by conventional zoning districts and design guidelines. Using a
collaborative and comprehensive approach, an applicant authors and proposes
standards and guidelines that are tailored to the context of a site on a case by case
basis. Where the PUD Development Narrative is silent on a requirement, the
applicable Zoning Ordinance provisions will be applied.
5. The PUD sets forth a limited list of permitted land uses for the site. The
development narrative lists Single-Family Attached and Multifamily Residential
Uses, both of which shall adhere to the development standards set forth in the
PUD. All temporary and accessory uses shall be subject to the Zoning Ordinance.
6. The PUD proposes development
standards designed to accommodate a
three-story single-family attached
residential building at a scale that is
compatible with the surround area, with
a maximum height of 35 feet and a
maximum density of 17.98 dwelling units
per acre. The development standards
have been crafted to allow a unique
building layout to be placed on the site,
with centralized pedestrian corridor
connecting the front porches and
entrances of individual units, and drive
aisles with access to individual garages
on the perimeters of the site. Below is a
summary of the key development
standards set forth in the narrative.

Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Works Bureau


Page 247
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


Development Standards
Standard Proposed
Density 16 dwelling units maximum
17.98 du/ac maximum
Building Height 3 stories and 35 feet
Building Setbacks
Front (Maryland Avenue) 10 feet minimum
Sides (east and west) 27 feet minimum at grade level
Rear (north) 12 feet minimum
Maximum Lot Coverage 46 percent maximum
Parking Minimum
Residents 1.3 spaces per efficiency unit
1.5 spaces per 1- and 2-bedroom units
2 spaces per 3- or more bedroom units
1 space per units less than 600 square feet
Unreserved guest parking 0.25 spaces per 1, 2, or 3-bedroom unit
Bicycle Minimum 0.5 spaces per unit
Landscape setbacks
Front (Maryland Avenue) 10 feet minimum
Perimeter 3 feet minimum
Open Space 8 percent minimum
Central corridor with meandering path no
narrower than 3 feet 6 inches and no wider
Central Courtyard Corridor than 10 feet 11 inches.
Building Height Compatibility
The proposed building height of three stories and 35 feet is comparable to both
existing and entitled building heights in the surrounding area. The property directly
to the east is zoned R-5 (Multifamily Residence District), which permits a maximum
height of 4 stories and 48 feet. The existing building height on this site is
approximately 2 stories and 28 feet. The property to the west of the project site is
zoned R1-6 (Single-Family Residence District), which permits a height of 2 stories
and 30 feet. The current building height on the property is approximately 26 feet.
Further west is a condominium development zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residence
District) that permits a height of up to 4 stories and 48 feet. The proposed height of
this PUD is comparable to the existing and entitled heights in this area, as depicted
in the following exhibit.




Page 248
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021




Building Height Comparison Exhibit
Source: Works Bureau
Landscape Standards
The PUD sets forth minimum planting requirements for the landscape setback
areas that exceed the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. All landscape setback
areas shall include a mix of minimum 2-inch caliper and 4-inch caliper trees,
contributing to a lush overall landscape aesthetic. These trees shall be planted 20
feet on center or in equivalent groupings, with minimum five, 5-gallon shrubs per
tree, and vegetative groundcover to provide 75 percent live groundcover in all
landscape areas. The PUD also requires that all pedestrian paths and open space
areas be shaded to 75 percent shade at maturity.

Fences/Walls
In addition to standard six-foot-tall walls along the interior perimeter property lines
of the development site, the PUD set forth standards to allow for an architecturally
unique front entrance gate and privacy fence that will serve not only security
purposes but will also beautify the Maryland Avenue streetscape. This fence shall
have minimum 50 percent visibility (open fencing), and will vary in height, from
three to six feet. The wall shall adhere to the design intent depicted in the
conceptual elevation for this feature.




Fence Design Concept
Source: Works Bureau




Page 249
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


The overall intent of this
PUD is to provide high
quality architectural
design. The PUD lists
several design guidelines
to achieve this intent.

Streetscape Design
In addition to the artistic
fence element and robust
landscaping, the Maryland
Avenue frontage will be
furnished with a shaded
pedestrian seating area,
water feature, bicycle
racks, and a bicycle repair
station to serve residents,
guests, and local bicycle
commuters.

Building Design
The purpose and intent of
this PUD is to produce a
“design-first” residential
development. The PUD
narrative has listed several Conceptual Rendering
Source: Works Bureau
standards to ensure that the
design concept envisioned for the site is achieved. These include floor to ceiling
windows and doors, interfacing patios, wrap around balconies that front the street,
bay windows, and skylights. The design standards also include minimum
requirements for a mix of high-quality building materials. These design standards
set forth in the narrative exceed the requirements outlined in the Phoenix Zoning
Ordinance for multifamily residential developments.
AREA PLANS, OVERLAY DISTRICTS, AND INITIATIVES
7. Housing Phoenix Plan
In June 2020, the Phoenix City Council approved the Housing Phoenix Plan. This
Plan contains policy initiatives for the development and preservation of housing with
a vision of creating a stronger and more vibrant Phoenix through increased housing
options for residents at all income levels and family sizes. Phoenix’s rapid
population growth and housing underproduction has led to a need for over 163,000
new housing units. Current shortages of housing supply relative to demand are a
primary reason why housing costs are increasing. The proposed development
supports the Plan’s goal of preserving or creating 50,000 housing units by 2030 by




Page 250
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


providing an opportunity for medium or higher density residential development.
8. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to
guide the development of its bikeway system and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-term
bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of destinations.
The proposal incorporates standards for bicycle parking for residents and guests,
and a bicycle repair station.
9. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan has a goal of treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure that trees are an integral part of the city’s planning and
development process. By investing in trees and the urban forest, the city can
reduce its carbon footprint, decrease energy costs, reduce storm water runoff,
increase biodiversity, address the urban heat island effect, clean the air, and
increase property values. In addition, trees can help to create walkable streets and
vibrant pedestrian places. The PUD sets forth standards for large tree plantings
along the streetscape and along perimeter property lines, as well as a requirement
for minimum 75 percent shade for all open space areas and pedestrian paths.
10. Complete Streets Guiding Principles
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. The PUD requires that the development
provide bicycle infrastructure in the form of bicycle parking and a bicycle repair
station along Maryland Avenue, as well as robust tree shade cover for a thermally
pleasant pedestrian environment.
11. Zero Waste PHX
The City of Phoenix is committed to its waste diversion efforts and has set a goal to
become a zero waste city, as part of the city’s overall 2050 Environmental
Sustainability Goals. One of the ways Phoenix can achieve this is to improve and
Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance expand its recycling and other waste
diversion programs. Section 716 of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance establishes
standards to encourage the provision of recycling containers for multifamily,
commercial and mixed-use developments meeting certain criteria. The proposal will
utilize individual trash and recycling bins for each residential unit, which will be
brought out onto the street for city solid waste collection.
COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
12. At the time this staff report was written, staff received twenty letters in opposition
and six letters with general inquiries regarding the PUD rezoning process. Those
opposed to the project cited concerns with height, density, traffic, and the nuisance
of individual trash bins for all 16 units being places on a narrow street frontage.



Page 251
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 24, 2021


INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
13. The Phoenix Fire Department has noted that they do not anticipate any problems
with this case and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the Phoenix Fire
Code.
14. The Public Transit Department has required that clearly defined, accessible
pedestrian pathways be provided to connect all main site elements and public
sidewalks, and, where they intersect drive aisles, they be constructed of materials
that visually contrast with parking surfaces. The department further required that all
pedestrian sidewalks be shaded to 75 percent at tree maturity. These standards
have been incorporated into the PUD narrative as regulatory standards.
15. The Street Transportation Department has required that the developer dedicate a
7-foot sidewalk easement along the north side of Maryland Avenue, that a traffic
statement be submitted to the City for the development prior to any preliminary
approval of plans, and that all streets be constructed with all required improvements
and comply with current ADA standards. These are addressed in Stipulation Nos. 2,
3, and 4.
OTHER
16. The site has not been identified as being archaeologically sensitive. However, in the
event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all ground
disturbing activities must cease within 33 feet of the discovery and the City of
Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and allowed time to
properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 5.
17. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and ordinances.
Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements. Other formal
actions such as, but not limited to, zoning adjustments and abandonments, may be
required.

Findings

1. The proposed PUD will provide a high quality multifamily residential development
which will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.
2. The site is appropriately situated in close proximity to the State Route 51 freeway to
the east and major commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.
3. The PUD will provide significant streetscape improvements along Maryland
Avenue, including robust tree shade coverage, public pedestrian seating, and
bicycle amenities.




Page 252
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
September 28, 2021


Stipulations

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date
stamped September 21, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and other
incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development Department.
All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

Writer
Sofia Mastikhina
September 14, 2021

Team Leader
Samantha Keating

Exhibits
Sketch Map
Aerial
Community Correspondence (39 pages)
Autem Row PUD date stamped September 21, 2021




Page 253
R1-6 C-O*
P-1*
Z-311-79

Z-58-88

R-O * R-5 *
16TH ST
Z-32-97 Z-180-81


PAD-13*
R-3
Z-231-79
Squaw Peak
Parkway
Specific Plan
MARYLAND AVE
R-O *
14TH PL Z-53-13
C-1
R1-6
15TH ST

I
Miles
Z-69-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD


24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD


32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST



REQUESTED CHANGE:
AUTEM Development
APPLICANT'S NAME:

FROM:
R-O ( 0.89 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/05/2021
Z-69-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP


0.89 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.


QS 22-30 I-9 TO: PUD ( 0.89 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-O 1/development N/A
PUD 16 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
Page 254
R1-6 C-O*
P-1*
Z-311-79

Z-58-88

R-O * R-5 *
16TH ST
Z-32-97 Z-180-81


PAD-13*
R-3
Z-231-79
Squaw Peak
Parkway
Specific Plan
MARYLAND AVE
R-O *
14TH PL Z-53-13
C-1
R1-6
15TH ST

I
Miles
Z-69-20 NORTHERN AVE

GLENDALE AVE

BETHANY HOME RD

0.025 0.0125 0 0.025
CAMELBACK EAST VILLAGE 7TH ST
CAMELBACK RD
INDIAN SCHOOL RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 6 16TH ST
SR 51
THOMAS RD


24TH ST
MC DOWELL RD


32ND ST
VAN BUREN ST
WASHINGTON ST

40TH ST
64TH ST
48TH ST 56TH ST



REQUESTED CHANGE:
AUTEM Development
APPLICANT'S NAME:

FROM:
R-O ( 0.89 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO. DATE:
1/05/2021
Z-69-20 REVISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP


0.89 Acres
QUARTER SEC. NO.


QS 22-30 I-9 TO: PUD ( 0.89 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
R-O 1/development N/A
PUD 16 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2020\Z-69-20.mxd
Page 255
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:31 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: info@mssinaz.com; Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Application Number Z-69-20 Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hi Sofia,

I am the President of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, a community located at Maryland Ave and
14th Place, a short distance from the proposed project referenced above. A number of our owners
have expressed extreme concern over the prospect of such a development being approved due to
several factors. This area has been infilled significantly with a number of developments but none as
intrusively as this. I am writing on behalf of the owners of Madison Groves Manor and on my own
behalf. The most prominent reasons we oppose this project are, briefly:

First, the height of over three stories for the buildings proposed is not at all compatible with existing
low building heights that predominate in this neighborhood, which we greatly enjoy, nor would they
blend into the existing profile. The phrase "would stick out like a sore thumb" comes to mind. It
would appear to have been shoved into a much too small lot, rising above structures below like bread
dough when pressed on each side. Townhouse owners next to this property must be beside
themselves at the prospect of being blocked off on their east side. It would also frankly ruin the
appearance of Maryland when turning into it from 16th St with this structure that's so incongruous to
its surroundings. We have a lovely and enviable street that drivers enjoy that would be quite
impacted.

Second, the lot is only .87 acre, so very small for 16 three-story+ units with a pool and
amenities. That's an unbelievable number and hard to imagine not belonging on a larger
property. We are very concerned about the density resulting on such a small lot and the congestion
that would result.

Third, our community of 19 units houses 55 residents. There is no reason not to think at least 50
residents on the low end would live there, especially if the units are three-bedrooms. Maryland traffic
has increased somewhat through the years but is still manageable. Being so close to 16th St would
only increase the traffic and congestion already present with vehicles backing up on Maryland during
busy hours, exposing drivers and pedestrians to possible accidents.

To summarize, this project is simply out of place and we would greatly appreciate your kind
consideration of our deep concerns and disapprove.

Thank you,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President,
Madison Groves Manor HOA

Page 256
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Rebecca Reimers
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 9:55 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: 1536 East Maryland / Tiffany & Bosco

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Dear Ms. Mastikhina,

I am a board member at Madison Groves Manor (MGM), located at 14th Place and Maryland. I am writing to
you about the proposed development on1536 East Maryland by Tiffany & Bosco. Several homeowners in
MGM have expressed concern to me about this development, particularly about the height (3 story) of the
planned homes. As you know, we do not have homes taller than 2 stories in the neighborhood. If these homes
are allowed, the concern is that it is only a matter of time before other properties on Maryland are also bought
and built up in a similar fashion. With adding many townhomes in such a small footprint, there is also a danger
of more congestion and traffic on an already increasingly busy street.

I am not able to attend the upcoming meeting, but I hope this email helps you understand how current
residents feel about this proposal.

Thank you for your time,
Rebecca Reimers
602-743-5028





Page 257
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Chic
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 5:51 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas; Lisa Spresser; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20


Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z-69-20, which deals with the property located at 1536-38 East
Maryland. I have owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate
neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be
clear this entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally
oppose the proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are
the subject of the zoning meeting.

When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area
density is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces.
What I oppose is when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was
distinctly a suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose
these structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the
proposed structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 258
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Jill Peters
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 12:32 PM
To: azm@tblaw.com; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Katie Gerlach
Subject: Resident comments re: Rezoning case Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


January 20, 2021

Ashley Z. Marsh, Attorney at Law Sofia Mastikhina
Tiffany & Bosco P.A. City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department
2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 700 200 West Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phoenix, AZ 85003

RE: Rezoning case number Z-69-20

To Whom it May Concern:

I am writing regarding the recent letter from Tiffany & Bosco P.A. to notify neighboring residents of the rezoning request
(Case # Z-69-20) concerning 1536 & 1538 E. Maryland Avenue, Phoenix, 85014 on of behalf of Autem
Development. The rezoning request is intended to allow redevelopment of the current business property into a townhome
community.

The purpose of my letter is to convey my strong opposition to the proposed development as described in the legal
notice. I also signed a petition of opposition from current residents at 1530 E. Maryland, based on similar concerns. The
primary reasons for my opposition are due to: 1) obstruction of current views due to the proposed 3-level townhomes on
adjacent homes at 1530 E. Maryland; 2) privacy issues; and, 3) construction nuisance for an indeterminate amount of
time.

I have been a home-owner at 1530 E. Maryland since 2011; the east side of my condominium would face the proposed
new development. Part of the appeal of purchasing this property is the location in a desirable area of Phoenix, particularly
one that allows a scenic view of Piestewa Peak from the east side of the condominiums. Based on the proposed blueprint
of the townhomes, the three-level structure would block my and other residents’ views that we currently enjoy. The new
development unfairly impacts a key facet of our current housing community and could potentially adversely impact our
overall value of our properties as well in the future should the development go forward as proposed.

Second, the proposed 3-level structure would be invasive to our properties as the units would overlook into our
condominiums and backyards. The current homes at 1530 E. Maryland are two-level units and our backyards are open
areas facing east. Again, residents like myself who purchased condominiums at 1530 E. Maryland deserve our privacy
and antecedence as current homeowners.

Obviously the new development would result in a lengthy construction period that will adversely impact our overall
neighborhood and in particular the units facing the development. Noise levels would be intrusive and detrimental at any
time, but in particular during this pandemic when residents like myself are working from home and would face these
distractions every work day during the construction period.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide my comments and would request a response as to how the developer will respond
to the concerns of current community residents.

Sincerely,

Jill Peters, Homeowner
1530 E. Maryland Avenue Unit 3

Page 259
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:00 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: New Development on E Maryland

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing to express my concern about the proposed new development on E Maryland. Specifically, I am deeply
concerned about the following:

1. This would be the only 3 story building on Maryland Ave which affects the privacy of nearby homes and
look/feel of the neighborhood
2. This would drastically increase traffic on Maryland and visibility with the parking
3. The plan for trash and recycling pickup would place 16 trash bins and 16 recycling bins on the street twice a
week ‐‐ contributing to traffic, congestion, and it is quite unappealing

Thank you for your consideration of my concerns.

Thank you,
Karolyn R. Benger
kbenterpriseconsulting.com [kbenterpriseconsulting.com]

I am offline from Friday evenings until Saturday evenings





Page 260
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:26 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information
Attachments: Z-69-20 Affidavit of Notification Packet 2.pdf


Good morning Katie,

The meeting tonight is organized and hosted by the applicant, and is not associated with the city. This is a
requirement of their rezoning process. So, you are correct that tonight’s meeting is simply to inform and gather
input from neighbors. If you have concerns, voicing them to the applicant at this meeting may be helpful. You
can contact Ashley Marsh at azm@tblaw.com to ask about participating tonight, and I believe the letter they
sent out has a meeting link you can access. I’ve attached their notification letter to this email, just in case.

Please let me know if you have any further questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:28 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information

Okay, thanks.

So, if I have owners that would like to speak this would not be the appropriate meeting for that? Also, the purpose of
this meeting is not to approve/table/disapproved the proposed development but rather just for informational purposes?
Is that correct?

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 6:06:23 PM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Page 261
Hi Katie,

This case has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings, so it has not been posted to a public hearing
notice yet. Once the case is scheduled for public hearings, it will appear in the monthly Camelback East Village
Planning Committee meeting agenda.

Thanks,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information

Hi Sofia, I don’t see that the agenda for the Autem Row hearing posted? Unless, I am looking in the wrong place.

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:59:04 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Good morning Katie,

Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings. It is still
in the first staff review stage. As this is a Planned Unit Development request, the case will be required to go
before the Camelback East Village Planning Committee twice – once for an informational session, and then
again at a later date for a recommendation and a vote. Once these dates are set, they will be posted on a sign
on the property, and letters will be sent out to property owners within 600 feet of the site. To register to speak
at upcoming hearings, please email me your request and also use the link on the meeting agenda to register
your information. Posted agendas can be found here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,


Page 262
Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hi Sofia,

Is this something you can assist Katie with?

Thank you,
Eric Morales, Planner II
Office: 602‐262‐7927
► Planning & Development Department
Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix



From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:44 AM
To: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hello, Please reply to this customer. ‐ Julie

From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:23 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: upcoming hearing information

Good morning,

Please see email below regarding hearing from customer.
Thank you

From: no‐reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:41 AM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd ‐ Form Submission

Page 263
FROM : Katie Gerlach

SUBJECT : Register to Speak

MESSAGE : Hello: I need to know the deadline to register to speak at the upcoming hearing for the Autem Row
Development (Case #Z‐69‐20) as soon as possible. Also, where do I register to speak? Thank you.

Email : Katie@petersoncompany.com

AREA : 602

PHONE : 7995632

ADDRESS : P.O. Box 15427

CITY : Scottsdale

STATE : Arizona

ZIP : 85267

Submission ID: 459a63d1370a4386a63cd80be457158d

Form Submission On : 1/14/2021 10:41:09 AM

Referer: https://phoenix.gov/pdd

This is Not Spam ‐ This message is sent on behalf of the City of Phoenix.
Please handle appropriately.





Page 264
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Chic
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina; Mary Ann Pikulas; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20


Sofia, per the letter I plan to be in attendance at the hearing tonight. I live at 6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014, and
have also been here 20 years. I am also referencing case number Z‐69‐20.

I have the exact same concern. I am not opposed to seeing the property developed. I am opposed to the 3 story
profile. I would like to see the business model for the property changed to luxury two stories. Part of the value of the
area is the proximity to and view of Piestewa. It would be unfortunate to "see" a mountain encapsulated by high‐
rises. We have other parts of the city trending that way, along the light rail would be a more suitable place for such a
choice. Parking for local markets is also becoming congested due to the infill that has been occurring as older and larger
lots are taking on more units per acre. There is an existing 3 story in the area, but it is on a corner. This proposed 3
story sits between two two story buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.

Lisa French

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:50 AM Chic wrote:
Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20, which deals with the property located at 1536‐38 East Maryland. I have
owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be clear this
entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally oppose the
proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are the subject of the
zoning meeting.

When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area density
is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces. What I oppose is
when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was distinctly a suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose these
structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the proposed
structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 265
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 7:06 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Chic; Mary Ann Pikulas; Maggie Williams; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged




As a result of a meeting we now understand that there will be 64'‐0" of trash cans lining Maryland twice a week. 16 cans
with a spacing of 4'‐0". Please add this to my concern(s) about the project.

Case Z‐69‐20

Lisa French
6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 9:28 AM Sofia Mastikhina wrote:

Good morning Lisa,



Just to clarify, the meeting tonight is an neighborhood meeting organized and hosted entirely by the applicant,
and not associated with any of the city’s hearing bodies. The city hearings have not yet been scheduled for
this case. Please contact Ashley Marsh azm@tblaw.com for inquiries regarding the neighborhood meeting.



I have placed a copy of your email with your concerns in the case file for the record. Please let me know if you
have any questions.



Best regards,



Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A

(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]

Planner II - Village Planner





Page 266
Long Range Planning

Office: 602-256-5648

200 West Washington Street

Phoenix, AZ 85003




From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Chic
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina ; Mary Ann Pikulas ; Maggie Williams
; rebecca.reimers
Subject: Re: Comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20



Sofia, per the letter I plan to be in attendance at the hearing tonight. I live at 6514 N 14th Pl, Phoenix, AZ 85014, and
have also been here 20 years. I am also referencing case number Z‐69‐20.



I have the exact same concern. I am not opposed to seeing the property developed. I am opposed to the 3 story
profile. I would like to see the business model for the property changed to luxury two stories. Part of the value of the
area is the proximity to and view of Piestewa. It would be unfortunate to "see" a mountain encapsulated by high‐
rises. We have other parts of the city trending that way, along the light rail would be a more suitable place for such a
choice. Parking for local markets is also becoming congested due to the infill that has been occurring as older and
larger lots are taking on more units per acre. There is an existing 3 story in the area, but it is on a corner. This
proposed 3 story sits between two two story buildings and would stick out like a sore thumb.



Lisa French



On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 5:50 AM Chic wrote:

Dear Sofia:

I offer these comments on zoning case Z‐69‐20, which deals with the property located at 1536‐38 East Maryland. I
have owned a home at 6520 N 14th Place for approximately 20 years so this is in my immediate neighborhood.

If one were to put the property being considered at the center of a circle with a radius of 1 mile, it would be clear this
entire circle is experiencing substantial, rapid, growth. For that reason it is hard for me to generally oppose the
proposed development. What I do take issue with is the 3 story height of the townhomes which are the subject of the
zoning meeting.


Page 267
When I bought my home in 2000 I feel I had a reasonable expectation of the profile of the community. The area
density is now being substantially changed with the proliferation of homes being crammed into small spaces. What I
oppose is when these structures restrict views, natural light, and create a corridor effect on what was distinctly a
suburban area.

It would be intellectually difficult for me to totally oppose the building of the proposed townhomes; I do oppose these
structure being 3 stories high and implore you to not issue building permits unless the height of the proposed
structures is modified downward.

Chic Older
Chicolder@gmail.com
602.999.0555

Sent from my iPad





Page 268
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Maggie Williams
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 8:21 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Zoning Case Z-69-20 Autem

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hello Sofia,

My name is Margaret (Maggie) Luciano‐Williams and I've owned my home at 6518 North 14th Place (Madison Grove
Manor) just west of the proposed development at 1536 East Maryland, for 20 years.

I'm concerned about the density of this complex along with the height of the overall structure. With that number of
units, I'm almost sure there will have to be overflow parking into the street where there is a bike lane. I'm also
concerned about it's proximity to the corner and the traffic congestion that the complex may create in addition to other
dense properties in the area.

While I'm in favor of the neighborhood being redeveloped and becoming more appealing, I don't think the way the
density of the complex will add beauty or functionality to our neighborhood. Perhaps if the number of units were cut by
half and the building height was lower, it would then be more appropriate to the small lot that it will be on.

I'm opposed to the current structure as proposed.

I appreciate your time listening to my concerns.


‐‐
Maggie Williams

Direct Line: 310.990.1231
email: Maggie.P.Williams@gmail.com





Page 269
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Margaret Lochhead
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:08 PM
To: azm@tblaw.com; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: rezoning case number Z-69-20, parcel 161-05-050C

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


To Ashley Marsh and Sofia Mastikhina



I am a homeowner in the neighborhood directly to the north of the planned project mentioned above. I am against the
zoning change because it is a 3 story project. Maryland Avenue has many 2 story multi‐family buildings and I feel to
approve this project will open the door for many more buildings over 2 stories.

In addition, the many zoning changes in our area has led to increased noise, pollution, safety issues and unbelievable
traffic problems and is having a very negative affect on our neighborhoods.

I have attended other neighborhood meetings and have found that the city zoning department never has any answers to
the issues that result from increasing the density in our area.

I would like this project to be terminated or at the very least be redesigned to accommodate 2 story units.



Sincerely,

Maggie Lochhead

1452 E. McLellan Blvd.

Phoenix, AZ 85014





Page 270
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 9:28 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Re: Application Number Z-69-20 Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Sofia,

Kindly resubmit my email to the applicant. Ashley had not read those submitted by owners from my community yet and
I would like her to see my additional concerns following tonight’s meeting:

Ashley:
Following discussion after the Neighborhood Meeting with other Madison Groves Manor owners, we have no choice but
to submit our very strong objection to plans for trash collection. Lining up 16 trash bins twice a week on Maryland in
front of your project, blighting what has always been beautiful Maryland with unsightly bins and having trash trucks
blocking traffic during pickup on a one lane street each way, is incomprehensible. Debris often drops from these trucks
as well, adding to the blight.

With space between each bin for the lift mechanism, a calculation of needing 64 feet has been made to line them
up. Yikes! If City services are used, a distance of 4 feet between bins is required. Even with each bin touching the next,
this would require over 33 feet. The answer that this is how it’s done elsewhere was less than satisfactory. This is not
elsewhere, this is the lovely, peaceful street we have always been proud of.

The addition of traffic created by this project would be unfortunate enough. Adding dirty, unsightly, often overfilled
trash bins outside as drivers turn onto Maryland would ruin the loveliness of our street and could very well impact the
ability of other property owners to sell their homes at desired prices when time. We are a neat and clean neighborhood
and need to keep it this way for our enjoyment and to protect our property values.

As there would only be four guest spaces, extra vehicles would be parked in the street, adding to a problem already
accelerating. This means two days a week your owners would not be able to utilize the curb in front of this property but
that in front of neighboring ones. This is not good planning. Street parking is already an issue.

Another plan for garbage collection must be found. Sadly, it appears the designers/developers may not have given
enough thought to the needs of the neighborhood or to those of neighbors.

Height is still an issue based on the comments from 1530 next door to this. Again, a 3‐story structure as mentioned in
another neighborhood has no bearing on justifying 3‐stories in our own neighborhood of 2‐story buildings.

Kindly consider these comments. We all want what’s best for all of us, not just the few. We appreciate the meeting and
look forward to other opportunities for neighborhood input.
Thank you,
Mary Ann Pikulas





Page 271
On Jan 19, 2021, at 8:33 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:


Good morning Mary Ann,

Thank you for your comments. I have saved your email to the case file for the record and have
forwarded it to the applicant. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2021 11:31 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: info@mssinaz.com; Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Application Number Z‐69‐20 Autem Row

Hi Sofia,

I am the President of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, a community located at
Maryland Ave and 14th Place, a short distance from the proposed project referenced
above. A number of our owners have expressed extreme concern over the prospect of
such a development being approved due to several factors. This area has been infilled
significantly with a number of developments but none as intrusively as this. I am writing
on behalf of the owners of Madison Groves Manor and on my own behalf. The most
prominent reasons we oppose this project are, briefly:

First, the height of over three stories for the buildings proposed is not at all compatible
with existing low building heights that predominate in this neighborhood, which we
greatly enjoy, nor would they blend into the existing profile. The phrase "would stick out
like a sore thumb" comes to mind. It would appear to have been shoved into a much
too small lot, rising above structures below like bread dough when pressed on each
side. Townhouse owners next to this property must be beside themselves at the
prospect of being blocked off on their east side. It would also frankly ruin the
appearance of Maryland when turning into it from 16th St with this structure that's so
incongruous to its surroundings. We have a lovely and enviable street that drivers enjoy
that would be quite impacted.

Second, the lot is only .87 acre, so very small for 16 three-story+ units with a pool and
amenities. That's an unbelievable number and hard to imagine not belonging on a
larger property. We are very concerned about the density resulting on such a small lot
and the congestion that would result.


Page 272
Third, our community of 19 units houses 55 residents. There is no reason not to think at
least 50 residents on the low end would live there, especially if the units are three-
bedrooms. Maryland traffic has increased somewhat through the years but is still
manageable. Being so close to 16th St would only increase the traffic and congestion
already present with vehicles backing up on Maryland during busy hours, exposing
drivers and pedestrians to possible accidents.

To summarize, this project is simply out of place and we would greatly appreciate your
kind consideration of our deep concerns and disapprove.

Thank you,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President,
Madison Groves Manor HOA





Page 273
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Samantha Keating
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 12:15 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


FYI

Thank you,
Samantha Keating
Principal Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-262-6823
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003



From: David Urbinato
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 10:12 AM
To: Council District 6 PCC
Cc: Samantha Keating
Subject: RE: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

We’ll forward to the village planner so they can include this in the file for that case.

David Urbinato
Management Assistant II
Phoenix Planning and Development Department
602‐534‐3630

From: Council District 6 PCC
Sent: Friday, January 22, 2021 9:30 AM
To: David Urbinato
Subject: FW: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Hi David – here is an email we received regarding an proposed PUD.

Thanks!
Erin

From: TimePro@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 10:14 AM
To: Council District 6 PCC
Subject: Development at 1536 and 1538 East Maryland, Phoenix, 85014

Mr. DiCiccio,

Page 274
Last evening I listened in on a meeting about the proposed PUD for 1536 and 1538 East Maryland.
After clearly understanding the proposal for 16 three-story residences, I am opposed to this
development as presented.

This is a neighborhood of predominantly one-story ranch homes. Several homes here have been
updated in that style and are most attractive. Please bring all possible influence available from your
office to the Zoning Committee to oppose this development as presented. If you or another office
wishes to contact me about this, please do.

Your support will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Glenda Whitten
6644 North 13th Street, 85014

We are not all in the same boat. We are
all in the same storm. Damian Barr

*******





Page 275
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Michael Beyo
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2021 7:24 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Townhouses on Maryland

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing to express my concern for the proposed development on E Maryland. For the reasons I am outlining here
below I am opposed to this project:

1. Privacy concerns since this would be a 3 stories building and it will impact the nearby homes.
2. Aesthetically a 3 story building will stick out as a foreign object in our neighborhood
3. Traffic will increase on an already heavily trafficked road.
4. The worst idea then is the plan for the trash and recycling pickup would place 16 trash bins and 16 recycling
bins on the sidewalk street twice a week. This will increase stray cats, rats, unappealing view, disruption for
people walking and so much more


Thank You!

Rabbi Michael Beyo





Page 276
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Marielle Brown
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 1:57 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina; Joel Carrasco
Subject: Fw: Maryland bike corridor

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hello Sofia and Joel,

Jason Stephens from MAG passed this along to me. I think the resident's issue is really with the rezoning case,
rather than the bike lanes. Are you able to respond? Feel free to cc me if you would like. It looks like it is in
Camelback East.

Thank you,

Marielle


From: Jason Stephens
Sent: Friday, February 26, 2021 7:50 AM
To: Marielle Brown
Subject: FW: Maryland bike corridor

This came to us, but it's a COP thing : )
You mind responding to this person?
Thanks!
Me

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Chic
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:50 PM
To: MAG General Mailbox
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas ; rebecca.reimers ; Maggie Williams
; Lisa Spresser
Subject: Maryland bike corridor

***This message came from an external source. Use caution clicking links and opening attachments.***

Hi Bike Planners:

I am writing to ask for some guidance.

I live on 14th place, 100 yards north of Maryland (1/4 mile to the west of 16th st). Maryland has a stripped east/west
bike paths and sees quite a bit of bike usage every day. Between 16th st and 14th place there are some confusing “no
parking” signs which means often there are cars parked on Maryland, mostly the north side, obstructing the bike lane. It
presents a further hazard in that cars going south from their homes onto Maryland often have an obstructed view of


Page 277
bike traffic going west on Maryland because of parked cars.

We have recently learned of a proposed townhouse development at 1536 E Maryland with what I feel are high density
homes and not enough space to accommodate the parking, and garbage pickup, needs of the proposed development.
To me, this means further blocking and obstruction of the west bound designated bike lane on Maryland when residents
of this proposed development have nowhere to park, or leave their garbage cans out for pickup, other than on
Maryland.

In my mind where the city planners and general public are seeking ways to address congestion, and emissions, allowing
yet one more development that is counter to safe, unobstructed, bike access crosses the line and should not be allowed.

Can you guide me to the proper source for me to voice this concern and get the city involved in protecting
encroachment on city designated bike lanes?

Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place
Phoenix, AZ

Sent from my iPad





Page 278
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Janet Bauer
Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 11:04 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Autem Row Project

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Sofia,

My name is Janet Bauer and I live at 1530 E, Maryland ave #8, Phoenix Az 85014. I am the Vice President of
our home owners association. I am emailing you to express my concerns with this project. I live behind this
proposed project and I know this project will have a definite negative effect on our community. My concerns
include their plans to build a three story complex, trash and recycle as well as parking. We don’t have any
three story buildings and this project will look directly into our backyards. We have a dumpster on our property
for our trash, I cannot imagine 16 trash and recycle cans lined up on Maryland to be picked up Every week.
This would definitely be an eyesore as well as having very negative traffic concerns. We have more than 4
visitor parking spots in our complex and these spots are always occupied and we have a parking shortage now
I can only imagine that this project will negatively impact a continuous exsisting parking issue for us and our
surrounding communities. I plan to be listening in to the com meeting tomorrow evening. Any help concerning
these matters would greatly be appreciated.

Thank you,
Janet Bauer
480-861-0568

Sent from my iPhone





Page 279
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:51 AM
To: Mary Ann Pikulas
Cc: Chic; Sofia Mastikhina; Marielle Brown; maggie.p.williams@gmail.com; rebecca.reimers@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Subject: Maryland bike corridor (Z-69-20)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


I agree that having the trash on sidewalks instead of the street might help with traffic, yet it would keep the area looking
unsightly on a regular basis. Maryland was not designed to become an alley. A plan for 8 units instead of 16 would be a
more appropriate solution. Widening sidewalks is a bandaid not a solution.

On Tue, Mar 2, 2021, 7:25 PM Mary Ann Pikulas wrote:
Chic,

So glad to see an effective process to forward communications, nice. One issue, we in
no way meant trash and recycle bins would be placed literally on the street itself, which
was not said at the homeowners meeting nor would make sense, but along the sidewalk
on the street, which was said. Widening the sidewalks is certainly not a solution. There
will still be a trash truck on the street blocking traffic and 16 unsightly bins two days a
week plus piles of bulk trash sitting for days waiting for quarterly pickup. Not a pretty
or healthy picture.

Chic, may I share your email with Maryland Village East and our Neighborhood
Associations?

I would like this email added to the case file.

Mary Ann


-----Original Message-----
From: Chic
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Marielle Brown ; Mary Ann Pikulas ; Maggie Williams
; rebecca.reimers ; Lisa Spresser

Sent: Tue, Mar 2, 2021 5:40 pm
Subject: Re: Subject: Maryland bike corridor

Dear Sofia:
Thank you for getting back to me; yes, I would appreciate my comments be included in the case file.
Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place

Sent from my iPad




Page 280
On Mar 1, 2021, at 9:02 AM, Sofia Mastikhina wrote:


Good morning Chic,

I hope this email finds you well. The message below was forwarded to me from our Street Transportation
Department, and they received it from MAG. I believe we have already corresponded regarding this
rezoning case (Z-69-20: Autem Row PUD) previously. Would you like the email below to be included in
the case file, in addition to your previous comments?

As you are aware, this case is still under review by the city, and we are awaiting the applicant’s
resubmittal. In staff’s first round of comments, the Street Transportation Department noted that on-street
parking will not be permitted due to the existing bike lanes. Further, in discussions with the applicant, it
was determined that the trash and recycling bins will not be placed on the street, but rather along the
sidewalk for pick-up. We have instructed the applicant to provide enhanced development standards for
the public sidewalks so that cans may be accommodated without obstructing pedestrian traffic (they are
proposing wider sidewalks, or additional paved areas to accommodate cans).

I have also copied Marielle Brown from our Street Transportation Department, as she handles the
bicycle infrastructure coordination for the city, and may help address any questions you have regarding
bike lane standards, specifically.

If you have any further questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
City of Phoenix
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

--

-----Original Message-----
From: Chic
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2021 6:50 PM
To: MAG General Mailbox
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas ; rebecca.reimers ; Maggie
Williams ; Lisa Spresser
Subject: Maryland bike corridor

***This message came from an external source. Use caution clicking links and opening attachments.***

Hi Bike Planners:

I am writing to ask for some guidance.

I live on 14th place, 100 yards north of Maryland (1/4 mile to the west of 16th st). Maryland has a
stripped east/west bike paths and sees quite a bit of bike usage every day. Between 16th st and 14th
place there are some confusing “no parking” signs which means often there are cars parked on
Maryland, mostly the north side, obstructing the bike lane. It presents a further hazard in that cars going
south from their homes onto Maryland often have an obstructed view of bike traffic going west on
Maryland because of parked cars.

We have recently learned of a proposed townhouse development at 1536 E Maryland with what I feel

Page 281
are high density homes and not enough space to accommodate the parking, and garbage pickup, needs
of the proposed development. To me, this means further blocking and obstruction of the west bound
designated bike lane on Maryland when residents of this proposed development have nowhere to park,
or leave their garbage cans out for pickup, other than on Maryland.

In my mind where the city planners and general public are seeking ways to address congestion, and
emissions, allowing yet one more development that is counter to safe, unobstructed, bike access
crosses the line and should not be allowed.

Can you guide me to the proper source for me to voice this concern and get the city involved in
protecting encroachment on city designated bike lanes?

Chic Older
6520 N 14th Place
Phoenix, AZ

Sent from my iPad





Page 282
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Sandy Grunow
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:18 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Crozier; Larry Whitesell; Dan Trozzi; Mary Ann Pikulas; Phoenix Mid-Century Modern
Neighborhood Assoc.
Subject: Case # Z 69-20


Thank you for providing an update regarding the proposed PUD on East Maryland Avenue, rezoning case number Z‐69‐20.

Neighborhood representatives met on March 4th via Zoom call with Autem Development to discuss the proposed project at 1536
and 1538 East Maryland Avenue. We met with applicants, Alexander Diamont and Jared Amzalleg. We offer the following
information as you and your staff evaluate the proposed PUD.

Design: The overall design with driveways on the east and west sides provide a nice setback from the adjacent properties.

Density: The density exceeds surrounding multifamily builds in the surrounding community. We understand some increase is
reasonable but this far exceeds even the newer builds. With so much density, we believe the parking and garbage collection cannot
meet minimum standards.

Guest Parking: Only 4 guest parking spaces are planned for 16 units. Additional guests are expected to park on Maryland Avenue, a
minor collector street servicing businesses, homes, residential complexes, residential streets, and several schools. There are bicycle
lanes on both sides of the street with restricted parking most hours. The existing limited street parking already negatively impacts
Maryland Avenue creating safety hazards especially for cyclists. This also begs the question about deliveries: Where will FEDEX,
Amazon, food deliveries, etc., park?

Trash: The proposed 16 unit three story complex has no plan for commercial trash pickup. According to the developers each unit
will utilize trash pick up by pulling their bins to Maryland Avenue twice a week, one day for trash, a second day for
recycling. Commercial trash as opposed to individual trash bins appears more appropriate for a planned unit development. The
other multi‐family properties on both sides of Maryland use commercial service even though they quality for City services.

Height: We support the maximum 34 ft. height for three stories. The developers were uncertain but may be placing air conditioning
units on the roof which would add to the overall height. We believe 34 feet is consistent with the existing structures that surround
the subject site.

In conclusion, significant parking issues, deliveries and trash collection matters could all be resolved if one or two units were
eliminated. We discussed reducing the density by one or two units with Mr. Diamont and Mr. Amzalleg who are at this time
unwilling. The overall design appears appropriate but without sufficient guest parking and commercial trash pick up it fails to
provide the superior environment anticipated in a planned unit development.

Once the Staff Report is available to public, please let us know. Do you have any questions of us?

Sincerely,

Sandy Grunow, Co‐Chair, Phoenix Mid‐Century Modern Neighborhood Association
Mary Crozier, North Central Phoenix Homeowners’ Association
Larry Whitesell, Co‐Chair, The Peak Neighborhood Association
Dan Trozzi, President, Squaw Peak Heights Neighborhood Association
Mary Ann Pikulas, President, Madison Groves Manor Homeowners Association





Page 283
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Deborah E. Basehore
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 4:47 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: PUD Application #Z-69-20

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged




Dear Ms. Mastikhina:

My name is Deborah Basehore and I live at 1530 E. Maryland Ave. I am writing in regards to the proposed re‐zoning
request by Autem Development on parcel #161‐05‐050C, re‐zoning Case #Z‐69‐20. I hereby submit the following
comments and objections:

1. Increased Density: Within 1 mile of my location, 1530 E. Maryland Ave., the number of residential units
(apartments, condos, homes) has increased exponentially with increased mega‐apartment units on 7th St. &
Maryland, condos/townhomes on 12th St. & Marlette, luxury homes on 16th St. between Maryland and Ocotillo
to name a few that have just been built within the last 12 mos. or less. This list is composed of only those
developments on “major” traffic streets within following objections.
2. Since the back of my condo will abut the proposed development, my privacy will be impinged upon due to the
proposed 3‐story height. This will allow the new unit owners a clear view of my backyard and the doors and
windows of my unit.
3. Maryland Ave. already has problems with parking in unauthorized areas. There is no parking on the street
during designated hours. These hours are consistently broken by many people. We have limited guest parking
in Maryland Village East but even those spaces are often used by residents leaving no guest parking. Autem
Development’s proposal will only exacerbate this problem but may be a cause for their residents & guests to
look to park in our guest parking areas.
4. Maryland Ave. already has problems with traffic. At 12th St. & Maryland, there are only 2 lanes, one right – turn
lane and one through lane. In fact, Maryland is a 2 lane street, one for each direction. I work .75 miles west of
our complex but, due to traffic demands and school crossings, I am literally stuck in traffic jams 2 times per day
because there is no left turn lane at 12th St. and 10th St. Adding additional cars to Maryland Ave. will only
increase the existing problems.
5. Infrastructure on Maryland Ave. will be impacted negatively with excessive stress on existing pavement and
potholes, sewer capacity, degrading sidewalks and clean water.
6. Quality of life is an extremely important issue for me. With our area already experiencing awful air quality, with
ozone alerts on most hot days, I suffer even more than others. I have COPD. When will the city planners begin
to recognize that this city needs less, not more, polluting sources? It seems to me that every development in my
area has received a rubber stamp from the city planners without consideration of the existing residents of this
neighborhood.
7. Garbage & Recycle barrels are proposed to be collected by the City of Phoenix. I can only imagine 32 of them
stacked along Maryland Ave., ending up in front of our complex and the building to the east of the proposed
development.
8. Crime has been increasing in our area steadily and my concern is that an “alley” will be created between our
complex and the proposed complex providing an easy dark access for thieves and the homeless.




Page 284
Although these are great considerations in this planning procedure, I am sure that there are many more
concerns from our neighbors in the area so please register me to attend virtually and to make additional
comments at the meeting on May 4 at 6 pm, if time allows.

Sincerely,

Deborah Basehore





Page 285
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Sunday, May 2, 2021 8:51 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas; spresser.mariesplace@gmail.com; chicolder@gmail.com;
maggie.p.williams@gmail.com; rebecca.reimers@yahoo.com
Subject: Case No. Z-69-20 AUTEM Row
Attachments: Z-69-20 AUTEM Row MGM Letter.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged



Hi Sofia,

I am the president of the Madison Groves Manor HOA, one of the nearby communities of the
proposed AUTEM Row project. In February, we submitted a letter with 41 signatures listing our
serious concerns, which were four. Three are still very much a concern as we understand the fourth,
height, is within zoning requirements.

With other Neighborhood Association Leaders in March, I attended a meeting with the developers,
who indicated they would look into these matters. Because we live here, we know and understand
this neighborhood and the issues that especially two of the concerns will present:

First, with limited guest parking, it is inevitable that visitors and delivery vehicles will park on
Maryland Ave. Maryland is a major Bicycle Corridor with a bike lane on each side in east and west
directions. That parking is already allowed on Maryland from 16th Street to 14th Place at any time at
all is very concerning and constantly endangers bikers who are squeezed between parked cars and
moving vehicles. Adding more parked cars, some of which are already parked illegally, will be
extremely detrimental. This only increases the possibility of accidents not only for bikers but for
community drivers trying to turn onto Maryland. Parked cars already block a clear view of the street.

Second, spreading 16 trash containers along Maryland twice a week is not only unsightly but
unhealthy. Besides being a busy bike route, the sidewalk along Maryland is also a favorite walking
path for pedestrians. Our suggestion is for the developers to ask the City to waive the 50 yard limit
imposed on commercial trash trucks entering a community. In this way, large community bins can be
utilized in back instead of having 32 bins, some possibly overflowing, rolled out to Maryland each
week, keeping Maryland clean and safe for pedestrians.

I am attaching our original letter for your reference.

Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Ann Pikulas
President, Madison Groves Manor



Page 286
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Janet Bauer
Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 1:15 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Autumn Row hearing

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


My name is Janet Bauer and I live at 1530 E, Maryland ave #8, Phoenix Az 85014. I have many concerns with
this project that is directly in back of my condo.

1. Parking, they only 4 visitor spaces and parking is such an issue in this area, it is definitely not enough. And
the traffic situation on Maryland is already bad and this project will only increase the problem.

2. We do not have 3 story building in this area, this would have a negative impact on our neighborhood and
totally block any views that we currently have.

3. The trash situation as I understand it currently is that they want to put 16 trash cans and 16 recycle cans
directly on Maryland for pick up. This would impact our traffic situation, walking on the sidewalk and be an
eyesore.

I will be attending the meeting but not speaking.

Thank you,

Janet Bauer

Sent from my iPhone





Page 287
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Katie Gerlach
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:45 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: upcoming hearing information


Hi Sofia, I don’t see that the agenda for the Autem Row hearing posted? Unless, I am looking in the wrong place.

Thank you,

Katie Gerlach


Get Outlook [aka.ms] for iOS

From: Sofia Mastikhina
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:59:04 AM
To: Katie Gerlach
Subject: RE: upcoming hearing information

Good morning Katie,

Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) has not yet been scheduled for any public hearings. It is still
in the first staff review stage. As this is a Planned Unit Development request, the case will be required to go
before the Camelback East Village Planning Committee twice – once for an informational session, and then
again at a later date for a recommendation and a vote. Once these dates are set, they will be posted on a sign
on the property, and letters will be sent out to property owners within 600 feet of the site. To register to speak
at upcoming hearings, please email me your request and also use the link on the meeting agenda to register
your information. Posted agendas can be found here:
https://www.phoenix.gov/cityclerk/publicmeetings/notices.

Please let me know if you have any additional questions.

Best regards,

Sofia Mastikhina, CNU-A
(she/her/hers) What is this?
[mypronouns.org]
Planner II - Village Planner
Long Range Planning
Office: 602-256-5648
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003


From: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 8:18 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information


Page 288
Hi Sofia,

Is this something you can assist Katie with?

Thank you,
Eric Morales, Planner II
Office: 602‐262‐7927
► Planning & Development Department
Planning Division
200 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Mission: Planning, Development and Preservation for a Better Phoenix



From: PDD Zoning
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:44 AM
To: PDD Zoning Adjustment
Subject: FW: upcoming hearing information

Hello, Please reply to this customer. ‐ Julie

From: PDD Development Services
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 11:23 AM
To: PDD Zoning
Subject: upcoming hearing information

Good morning,

Please see email below regarding hearing from customer.
Thank you

From: no‐reply@phoenix.gov
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2021 10:41 AM
To: PDD Development Services
Subject: emplandsd ‐ Form Submission


FROM : Katie Gerlach

SUBJECT : Register to Speak

MESSAGE : Hello: I need to know the deadline to register to speak at the upcoming hearing for the Autem Row
Development (Case #Z‐69‐20) as soon as possible. Also, where do I register to speak? Thank you.

Email : Katie@petersoncompany.com

AREA : 602

PHONE : 7995632

Page 289
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Vanessa and Brian Lee
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2021 6:59 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Questions re: Z-69-20. parcel # 161-05-050C

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Good morning,

I am neighbor In Madison Manor 2, located in the circle of single family homes north of the planned
development for 3-story townhomes by Autem Development. I attended the neighborhood meeting last
Wednesday evening.

Can you tell me what the next step is in the city review process? We are concerned about the addition of a 3-
story development just south of our quiet circle of one-story single family homes. Neighbors from south and
west of the development expressed their concerns about traffic and the height of the project but I'm not clear
what the north side of development will look like. It appears on the map that we have a small buffer right now
from the south end of our neighbor's property (parcel #161-08-054C ) which butts up against the development.
There is also a parking area to the east (parcel 161-08-054B) of that parcel. Is that correct? Are there any
projects planned for those two sites?

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Kind regards,

Vanessa Lee

1502 E. McLellan Blvd.





Page 290
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 6:32 PM
To: Zander Diamont; Ashley L Loan; Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Re: Autem Development Inquiry

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed


You can have a three story building with a two story profile, that does not exceed adjacent buildings. You could go
Haver style (Ralph Haver in case you are not aware of his architectural presence in our community) with the windows in
the bedrooms. The bedrooms could go underneath the garage, in the ground. This could be a win for you as you might
be able to secure a taller garage while respecting the community's wishes or higher ceilings in the living
room/kitchen. Netflix Grand Designs has some excellent examples of this. This would also make the bedrooms more
thermally efficient and private.



On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:56 AM Zander Diamont wrote:
Hey Lisa‐‐

I wanted to first thank you for your concerns and efforts in reaching out.

I want you to know that I hear your concerns about height and want to ensure this is something we have taken into
consideration since our first design meeting. We will be making available a height comparison image on our website for
you. With that being said, our structure is only a couple feet taller than the adjacent structure to the east. Our goal was
to give our three story design a two story profile.

We will be doing all that we can to ensure our design only enhances, and doesn't disturb, the current vibe and
beauty that Maryland Ave offers.

Thank you for reaching out.
Please do not hesitate to call me personally if you have any questions or further concerns. I'm happy to chat!

Thank you :)
To help protect y ou r priv acy , Microsoft Office prev ented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.





Page 291
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Lisa Spresser
Sent: Sunday, January 31, 2021 6:44 PM
To: Jared Amzallag; Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Zander Diamont; Ashley Zimmerman Marsh
Subject: Re: Autem Development Inquiry

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed


Maryland is a lifeline to the canal for many cycling communities, they are being brought into awareness of this issue. 16
trash cans twice a week is 64 feet of trash cans blocking the cycling lanes. Due to the density you are aspiring for, guests
will be filling the spots not on Maryland, but in front of the houses just south of Maryland. In effect you have
commanded the neighbors to support your project with a design that may be lucrative to your team, but devaluing to
those who have already invested in the area.

You have hired a reputable architectural firm who can do better for you and us. The bike lanes need to be preserved
and guest parking needs to be contained to those living in the project.



On Fri, Jan 29, 2021 at 11:57 AM Jared Amzallag wrote:

Hi Lisa,



Thanks for your inquiry and thank you again for putting forth your thoughts for us! We genuinely appreciate your
feedback and we aim to be as aligned with the neighborhood as possible with this development.




In regards to trash collection, we have arranged to have 16 bins collected on two different days of the week instead of
32 bins on one day which is a great help here. This type of bin collection is very in line with communities in the
area/neighborhood and not at all a challenge for trash collection companies to manage. I have spoken with the trash
collection companies myself to ensure there is no issue here.



I understand that there are other developments going up in this neighborhood and that adjusting to the change can have
its pros and cons. Our team has gone the extra mile to create a design first community here that the neighborhood can
be proud of, and we're taking every measure to as accomodating as possible for everyone in the area.

If you would like to jump on a call to discuss any of your concerns, please feel free to let me know and I will make myself
available for you!

Best,





Page 292
Sofia Mastikhina

From: deb.english@cox.net
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:21 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: 1536 E Maryland project

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hello Sofia
You left your email as the person to contact on the zoning hearing and neighborhood conversations this developer is
involved in for their project at 16th St and Maryland.

I have a question for my client that has the adjoining lot to the north. Part of this project encroaches on the setbacks and
is not in the best interests for my client’s property use. What is the process for protecting our setbacks and to know and
be kept aware of the process on this project?

Thank you.

Debbie English
Realtor, Interior Designer, LEED AP


 Uptown Design



PH: 602‐432‐9202
Fax: 602‐386‐1634
Search for Homes in Arizona [homesmart.com]
Search for NEW Homes in Arizona [showingnew.com]





Page 293
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Linda Richards
Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 8:35 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: Katie Gerlach; Sarah Entz
Subject: Autem Row

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Hi Sofia,

I am president of the Maryland Village East HOA. We are located next door to the proposed Autem Row
development.

It has come to my attention — and not through channels — that the meeting you were going to be hosting on
this topic on March 2nd has been postponed until April because the developers did not meet the timeline for
submitting their final plans. Is this correct?

The same source let me know that the title of the property in question — 1536 E. Maryland Avenue — has not
yet changed hands. Is that something you are aware of or can confirm?

Best,

Linda

Direct Line: 805-459-1550


--

Author, Journalist, Photographer
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://lindalrichards.com/__;!!LkjWUF49MRd51_ry!Ny5SQ6vbyZTExkLaN-
lpY4upIPNiWZGf5FKGsyH2ipAkOFW82t2tyggkZWNNRl_jgdlBbnIzLQ$
Editor, January Magazine
https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.januarymagazine.com__;!!LkjWUF49MRd51_ry!Ny5SQ6vbyZTExkLaN
-lpY4upIPNiWZGf5FKGsyH2ipAkOFW82t2tyggkZWNNRl_jgdljffevZQ$





Page 294
Attachment C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-20-6
INFORMATION ONLY

Date of VPC Meeting May 4, 2021
Request From R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of
16th Street and Maryland Avenue


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Bill Lally, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, presented an overview of the request
and explained that this is simply an introduction of the project and that no action will be
taken by the committee at this time. He proceeded to outlined the site conditions with
the two existing homes that are zoned R-O and have been operating as two separate
home businesses for some time. The site is situated in a fairly densely populated area
and located directly to the west of a commercial corner. He presented an aerial map
depicting other nearby residential developments of similar size and intensity to the
proposed project, explaining that these types of infill projects have happened
successfully within the village. He outlined the public outreach process which included
creating a website with information regarding the project, a neighborhood meeting which
is the first of two required by the city, and several one-on-one conversations and emails
with individual community members. He then presented the proposed site plan and
explained that the main reason that a PUD is being requested is the unique layout of the
site, which proves driveways on the perimeters of the site instead of the more traditional
townhome designs of a main centralized driveway. This then creates an internal
pedestrian plaza that fosters a stronger sense of community and encourages
interactions among residents. In addition to the ability to restrict uses, the PUD provides
the toolkit necessary to create this unique site layout. He then presented the
architectural elevations, noting that the garages will be facing outwards, the front of the
buildings, with balconies, will be facing the interior pedestrian courtyard, and the
Maryland frontage will have the sides of the building. A conceptual rendering of the
Maryland frontage includes landscaping, a bike station, bench and maybe a water
feature. The wall along the street frontage will be made of wooden slats instead of
traditional CMU block, providing a more engaged pedestrian frontage. A conceptual
rendering of the interior of the site shows a pedestrian friendly realm with ground floor


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 295
patios and balconies on upper floors to provide a high-end design product, which the
area needs. He concluded his presentation and made himself available to answer any
questions that the committee has.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Deborah Basehore expressed concern with the proposed density of the project, the
lack of inviting open space, and the impact the development will have on Maryland
Avenue. She explained that this street is not meant to be a thoroughfare and is a two-
lane street that already experiences an overflow of traffic. She also expressed concern
with the trash collection along Maryland Avenue, as the developer is proposing to put 32
individual bins for pick up along the street.

Sarah Entz, representative for the townhomes directly west of the project site,
expressed her community’s concerns with the proposed height, parking, and trash
collection. She stated that this will be the only three-story building in the immediate
area, which is not compatible. Further, there are only four proposed guest parking
spaces for the 16 units, which would exacerbate an already existing on-street parking
problem in the neighborhood. The proposed trash collection, which would put sixteen
trash cans out on Maryland twice a week will make the traffic issues on Maryland even
worse. She explained that they are not opposed to multifamily development but
requested that there be a delay in a decision to allow the developers to work with the
community on addressing these concerns.

Sandy Grunow, representing community leaders of the Phoenix Midcentury Modern
Neighborhood Association, Phoenix North Central, the Peak Neighborhood and
Madison Grove, stated that she and the other leaders have met with the developers to
discuss the proposal. She stated that the driveway design around the buildings provides
a nice setback, but that the density far exceeds the surrounding multifamily
developments and the guest parking is below the 8 required spaces for 16 residential
units. She explained that Maryland is a minor collector road that as businesses, homes,
residential complexes, and several schools. All of this results in a lot of traffic on the
already limited streets, which poses safety hazards, especially for bicyclists. She then
asked where delivery trucks such as Amazon and FedEx would park given the limited
on-site parking. She then stated that the community is supportive the 31.5-foot building
height of three stories, but noted that the developer, at their meeting, had mentioned
needing to go higher, to 34 feet, to accommodate air conditioning units, so she asked
that they go no higher than that. Finally, she proposed two suggestions to mitigate the
density concern: explore adding the lot to the north of the site or reduce the density by
one to two units. Both scenarios would also allow for the inclusion of an internal trash
pick up area, as well as the required 8 guest parking spaces.

Lally thanked the members of the public for their comments and stated that his team
had discussed many of these issues with individuals already. He addressed the concern
regarding the building height, explaining that the City of Phoenix does not include air
conditioning units in building height measurements, but stated that these buildings are
not likely to have air conditioning units on top of them. The proposed building height is
30 feet and, for context, the residential complex to the west has a building height of 26
feet, so there will only be a difference of 4 feet between the two developments, in
addition to a 25-foot building setback between the two. Further, on the east side is a 28-
foot tall building, so the difference is approximately 2 feet. He explained that the
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 296
proposed height of this development would be in line with what is existing and would not
be out of character for this area. He then explained that if the site was zoned R-3,
similar to the development to the west, they would be able to build up to 40 feet.
However, the PUD will limit the building height to 30 feet. He then addressed the
concerns about guest parking, explaining that although the City of Phoenix requires a
certain number of spaces, the world has changed and the way people visit places has
also changed, with more and more people opting for alternative modes of transportation
such as bicycles and other non-vehicular travel. The developer is also hoping to
negotiate a shared parking agreement with the property owner to the east of the site to
be able to provide additional parking. The biggest issue with the proposal so far has
been the matter of the trash collection, and the developer will pursue an appeal with the
city to allow on-site trash pickup. Delivery trucks will be able to park on site for quick
deliveries, as most trucks these days are fairly small. He states that all infill
development projects such as this have site logistics issues, but that they will continue
to work with the community to come up with solutions and bring a quality development
to the neighborhood.

Daniel Sharaby asked how many guest parking spaces are required by the city.
Mastikhina replied that the Zoning Ordinance requires 0.5 guest parking spaces per
residential unit in a multifamily development, which would come out to 8 parking spaces
for this project.

Chair Jay Swart encouraged Mr. Lally to work closely with the neighbors to solve the
issues brought up at this meeting before coming back to the committee for a vote,
especially regarding the trash collection appeal and the shared parking agreement, as
there seems to be plenty of space on adjacent properties.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 297
Attachment D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-69-20-6

Date of VPC Meeting October 5, 2021
Request From R-O (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District)
Request To PUD (Planned Unit Development)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of
16th Street and Maryland Avenue
VPC Recommendation Denial
VPC Vote 8-3


VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

Sofia Mastikhina, staff, provided an overview of the request, including its location,
current and surrounding zoning and land uses and General Plan Land Use Map
designation. She outlined the proposed development standards, which include a
maximum density of 16 dwelling units, maximum height of three stories and 35 feet, and
a central courtyard landscape area. She presented a height comparison exhibit
provided by the applicant that shows the proposed building next to the existing
neighboring structures. She the presented the conceptual elevations and explained
some of the proposed design guidelines contained in the PUD, which also address
provisions for an architecturally integrated entry gate and fence along Maryland Avenue.
She stated staff’s recommendation for approval and listed the associated stipulations.

John Oliver, representative with Tiffany & Bosco, provided an overview of the request
including the site’s proximity to major transportation corridors. He presented the
conceptual site plan, noting that units will have individual garages that are accessible
from the east and west, there will be a central amenity courtyard corridor running the
length of the property, as well as enhanced landscaping along Maryland Avenue. He
then presented the conceptual elevations which depict floor to ceiling windows and
wrap-around balconies. He explained that the intent of the central courtyard corridor is
to create a sense of community among residents, whereas many developments in the
area create division between units through central vehicular drive aisles that split a
development site. He also showed photos of some examples in the nearby area. He
presented additional conceptual renderings of the development, pointing out the central
courtyard, pedestrian-level amenities such as shaded seating, the architectural entry
gate, and bicycle amenities such as a publicly accessible bike repair station. He then

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882

Page 298
outlined the community outreach process, which has been ongoing for the past 10
months.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Sarah Entz, representing the community to the west of the subject site, stated that their
community has expressed two main concerns since this case first came to be, and have
expressed these same concerns at the last committee meeting also. The first is the
matter of parking, as the site only proposes four guest spaces to serve the 16 dwelling
units. She stated that this will result in on-street parking and blocking of bike lanes. The
second issue is that of trash collection. The development proposes to place 16
individual trash bins along Maryland Avenue for collection, which will be an unsightly
nuisance and will also block the bike lanes. She stated that neither of these issues have
been addressed by the applicant.

Linda Richards stated that she lives in the community to the west of the site, where
there are 18 residential units served by seven guest parking spaces. She explained that
guest overflow parking is a huge issue there, as there is not enough on-site parking.
She expressed concern at the applicant’s inability to address this concern and stated
that she felt disrespected by the applicant at their neighborhood meeting.

Larry Whitesell, Co-Chair of the Peak Neighborhood Association, explained that the
community started meeting with the developer in March of 2021, where they expressed
their support for this type of development, but that there are concerns that needed to be
addressed first. He stated that the first concern was the proposed ten-foot building
setback along Maryland Avenue, which staff had also been concerned about, per the
first and second staff review comment letters. The applicant had provided examples of
similarly reduced setbacks in nearby properties to justify their request. Whitesell
presented photos and measurements that show larger setbacks on those properties
than what was provided by the applicant.

Sandy Grunow, representing the Phoenix Midcentury Modern Neighborhood
Association, stated that the developer has approached city staff to request a technical
appeal to allow trash trucks to enter and back out of the development for waste
collection. Otherwise, there will be 16 trash cans lined up along Maryland Avenue once
per week, blocking the bike lane and creating safety hazards. She presented an
alternative, per a letter from Megan Sheets, the city’s Public Works Project Manager,
which states the applicant can seek to obtain a variance to allow 90-gallon waste and
recycling bins in an enclosure within the landscape setback. She stated that the
community supports this alternative.

Mary Crozier, president of the North Central Phoenix Homeowners Association, stated
that she bikes along Maryland Avenue frequently and that this is one of her least
favorite stretches of the Sonoran Bike Trail. She stated that the bike lanes are
frequently blocked by parked cars and trash bins, as the city is too understaffed to
enforce parking regulations, so this proposal would only further exacerbate the issue.
She also expressed her concern over the reduced front yard setback, which will bring
the building closer to the street and reduce sight visibility for cars entering and existing
this location, which will be a hazard for cyclists on this road. She stated that she is
supportive of new housing in the city, but that there are better ways to solve the parking
and trash placement issues. She also explained that currently the General Plan would
allow this property up to 14 dwelling units and that, if the applicant reduces their request
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 299
to this number, the problems expressed by the community would be solved. She stated
that the community has been asking for this for several months and asked that the
committee strongly consider the challenges that this development will pose on the
community.

Dan Trozzi, president of the S. Peak Height Neighborhood Association, stated that he
has lived in this neighborhood for several years and that the community has worked
hard to ensure positive, compatible changes. He stated that the is not opposed to new
developments, but that there are significant issues with this proposal that have not been
addressed. He stated that if the developer deletes the two units closest to Maryland, it
will solve the concerns with the setback, the sight visibility for vehicles, the guest
parking spaces, and would also reduce the overall lot coverage on the site. He
presented a financial analysis to show that the reduction in units would not be a
financial burden on the developer and that they would still be able to make a profit on
the development.

Mary Ann Pikulas stated that parking has been a critical issue since the community
meeting with the developer in March and explained that Maryland Avenue does not
allow any on-street parking due to the existence of bike lanes on both sides of the
street. She also expressed her concern with the reduction of guest parking spaces,
noting that staff shared the same concern in their comment letter to the applicant, to
which the applicant provided guest parking calculations for nearby developments that
are similarly underparked. She stated that these other developments also have
insufficient guest parking that has resulted in congestion issues. She agreed with Dan
Trozzi’s suggestion of reducing the residential unit count to solve these issues.

Chair Jay Swart asked if the trash collection along Maryland Avenue is imposed by the
city. Mastikhina explained that it is required by code and that deviation from it requires
approval of a technical appeal.

Oliver restated the three main community concerns, which are the trash, the parking,
and the height. He explained that the trash collection method is required by the City of
Phoenix for this type of development, but that they are planning on pursuing approval of
a technical appeal once they receive the zoning, as an appeal cannot be filed until this
portion is complete. Regarding parking, he stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires
1.5 spaces per one- and two-bedroom units, which would total 24 required spaces.
Each unit will have a two-space garage, so there will be 23 parking spaces, which is a
surplus of 8 spaces. The ordinance also requires 0.5 guest parking spaces per one- or
two-bedroom units, which results in eight required guest parking spaces. The proposal
has four guest parking spaces, so they are short four spaces. However, with the eight-
space surplus noted for residential parking, there is an overall parking space surplus of
four parking spaces on the site. He also stated that the city’s parking requirements were
written before the advent of rideshare services such as Lyft and Uber, which are now
more commonplace in people’s lives. He then addressed the concerns with height,
noting that there is only a difference of four to six feet between adjacent buildings and
the proposed project. He then addressed the concern regarding the reduced building
setback, stating that it will be robustly landscaped, and that the city has also been
promoting more walkable urban environments, which include pushing buildings closer to
sidewalks for visual interest.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 300
Chair Swart expressed concern with Linda Richards’ comment that the community was
disrespected at the neighborhood meeting and asked the applicant if he remembers
such an incident at any of their meetings. Oliver replied that he does not recall any such
moment but noted that it is very challenging to run virtual meetings via Zoom when
there are many attendees, in which case some people may not get a chance to speak
or are inadvertently talked over as others unmute themselves. He stated that it is never
the intent of this development team to be disrespectful to any community members and
apologized if that was the impression. He reiterated their openness to community
discussion and has offered up his phone number for members of the community to
discuss the case at any time.

Daniel Sharaby stated that the community has been dismissed and hasn’t been heard
through this process, noting that the applicant’s rebuttal regarding the overall parking
space count does not address the guest parking issue, since most of the spaces will be
provided in private enclosed garages.

MOTION
Daniel Sharaby made a motion to deny the request as filed. Barry Paceley seconded
the motion.

DISCUSSION
Daniel Sharaby stated that the community has been dismissed and hasn’t been heard
through this process, noting that the applicant’s rebuttal regarding the overall parking
space count does not address the guest parking issue, since most of the spaces will be
provided in private enclosed garages. He also fails to see how this proposal goes above
and beyond what is required by code.

Linda Bair expressed concerns over the proliferation of PUD requests, which she
recalls were originally intended to help with development on assemblages of mixed-use
sites. In the past year, applications have been submitted for small sites and have been
an abuse of the Zoning Ordinance, as developers simply want to maximize the height
and density for their projects. She expressed concern with the city recommending
approval for these requests and stated that there needs to be some discussion within
the Planning and Development Department regarding the appropriateness of these
requests. She also expressed concern with the safety along Maryland Avenue, which
already presents sight visibility issues. Chair Swart asked staff to relay this concern to
management to start a conversation regarding PUDs within the city.

VOTE
8-3: Motion passes with committee members Bair, Thraen, Eichelkraut, Garcia, Miller,
Paceley, Sharaby, and Tribken in favor, and committee members Swart, Abbott, and
Bayless dissenting.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 301
Attachment E




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021

Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the staff recommended stipulations to
account for changes to the PUD development narrative, per the applicant’s request.

On October 5, 2021, the Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
request and recommended denial, noting the continued community opposition to the
case due to ongoing concerns regarding the proposed density, reduction in guest
parking, and on-street waste collection. After the meeting, the applicant worked with
members of the community on modifications to the request to address these concerns
and has requested modifications to the PUD development narrative to accommodate
the changes made to the proposal. The key modifications are as follows:
x Density reduction from 16 units to 15 units
x Increase of guest parking from 4 spaces to 6 spaces
x Relocation of bicycle repair station to the interior of the development
x Exploration of alternative waste collection methods
The below stipulations list the applicant’s requested modifications to the PUD
development narrative and an additional stipulation to address alternative waste
collection. Staff recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:




Page 302
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021


1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped September 21, 2021, as modified by the following
stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].
B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
C. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF
UNITS TO 15.
D. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.
F. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST
PARKING TO 0.40 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT
MINIMUM OF 6 GUEST PARKING SPACES.
G. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.
H. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH
TO REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE
LAYOUT AS PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
OCTOBER 28, 2021.
I. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD
ZONING COLUMN.
J. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE
REFERENCE TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.
K. PAGE 38, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

Page 303
Addendum A to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
November 3, 2021


2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP.


Exhibits
Site plan date stamped October 28, 2021 (1 page)
Community correspondence (56 pages)




Page 304








7 9






LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: TIFFANY AND BOSCO, P.A.
2525 E CAMELBACK ROAD, 7TH FLOOR
PHOENIX, AZ 85016
WILLIAM E. LALLY ESQ./ WEL@TBLAW.COM
5 602-452-2716
PEDESTRIAN
LIGHTING BOLLARDS
@ APPROX 20’OC
(TYP)



BENCH
P5



P6


15 30
7.5

Page 305
















(MUST BE PROVIDED)
(MUST BE PROVIDED)
21 OCTOBER 2021




PUD APPLICATION
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 5:08 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Development on Maryland Street

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing about my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recyling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland, will cause problems for
bikers and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic
lane, creating a horrible risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our
street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a
special classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus
residents possibly living there, each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on
Maryland this takes away the bike lane and blocks driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland.
It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the
developers to address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street.
This is truly scary when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,

KarolynBenger
Sentfrommyphone





Page 306
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:07 AM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Cc: John T. Oliver; Mary Ann Pikulas; Linda Richards; Sandy Grunow; Dan Trozzi
Subject: Z-69-20 Autem Row Meeting Recap
Attachments: 19 Oct 2021 Meeting Recap.pdf


Goodmorning,SofiaͲ

ThisemailistosharewithyoutheresultofarecentmeetingbetweenMr.Oliverandneighborhoodrepresentatives
concerningtheAutemRowapplication,ZͲ69Ͳ20.Iofferedtosendthismeetingrecaptoyousoyouareawareofthe
positionoftheneighborhoodrepresentativesonseveralissues.ThereareacoupleofitemsthatMr.Oliverindicatedare
encouragedbyZoningstaff.Hesupportedmyoffertoinformyouaboutourremainingissuessothatpossiblerevisionof
thoseitemswouldnotbecomeconcernsofZoningstaff.

Pleasecontactmeifyouwanttodiscussanyofthecontentsoftheattachedmeetingrecap.

LarryWhitesell,CoͲchair
thePEAKNA
602Ͳ370Ͳ8453





Page 307
On Tuesday, October 19th several neighborhood representatives met virtually with John Oliver, Law
Clerk at Tiffany & Bosco, who represents the Autem Row developers. Mr. Oliver reached out to us to
discuss the developer’s revision of the site plan to eliminate 1 unit and increase the guest parking spaces
to 6. While we appreciate their willingness to make this revision, the proposal still lacks neighborhood
support for several reasons. We discussed these in detail with Mr. Oliver.

1. The developers are considering elimination of 1 unit, possibly unit 8 on the current site plan, the
north-west unit.

2. Guest Parking: Elimination of 1 two bedroom unit reduces the required guest parking spaces from 8 to
7.5. Adding 2 spaces to the original proposal of 4, gets closer to the required number. The 2 spaces
would be located in the north-west corner of the property next to the already planned 2 spaces and
turnaround. However, there is still great concern about the likelihood of guest parking on Maryland in
the bike lane. More about this is in the solutions paragraph below.

3. Trash and Recycling: Mr. Oliver has stated on several occasions that they would submit a technical
appeal to make it possible for a centralized collection compound to be used rather than 15 individual
bins being placed on Maryland in the bike lane twice per week. We support this proposal but with a
modification of the proposed location of the compound. They are considering the compound being
located in the north-west corner of the property. We have an alternative proposal below.

4. Bicycle Storage/Repair/Bench: Mr. Oliver stated this is an amenity encouraged by Zoning staff. We
expressed a concern about having a bicycle storage/repair area and bench that is in the landscape
setback on the south side of the proposed fence. We believe that having an unsecured area open to the
public is a potential attraction to individuals living on the streets.

Please be aware of the current conditions in the area. Maryland dead-ends at the St Rt 51 wall just 1500
feet from the subject property. This is where several homeless people locate. There is a large single
family detached (R-1-6) development under construction on the south side of Maryland, east of 16th St
at the freeway wall. This will cause the unhoused people to relocate. It is predictable that some will
move to any area that provides shelter and seclusion, such as the proposed bike area and bench.

We stated that homeowners in the complex will likely store their bicycles in their garages, especially
with more room created by not having to locate their trash and recycling bins in the garage. Also, the
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan does not mention having publicly accessible bike storge and repair.
There are two recent cases in Camelback East VPC, Z-920-6 the Willowick PUD south-west corner of 16th
St & Colter, and Z-65-20 PUD at 5727 N 7th St., that included bike storage/repair within the confines of
the buildings. Note these are apartments without individual garages, unlike Autem Row that is owner
occupied with individual garages.

5. Front Set-Back: We continue to be concerned with the front set-back. Mr. Oliver stated that Zoning
staff was interested in having the front of the building interact with the sidewalk/street. We understand
this concept as it is incorporated into the Walkable Urban Code. The subject property is not close to any
area that is in the WU Code or Transportation Oriented Districts. Also, in two reviews by Zoning staff of
the proposed develop, Zoning staff stated that they were not in agreement with the limited front set-
back. That concern is dropped in the 3rd review and staff report. The neighborhood representatives still
hold that concern.




Page 308
6. The neighborhood representatives proposed the following solutions that resolve every issue. We
strongly encourage the developer to eliminate 2 units, preferably units 1 and 9 on the south side of the
site. This would provide ample area for:

a. 4 more guest parking spaces bringing the total to 8 (7 would be required).

b. locating the centralized trash/recycling compound at the street side of the property but behind the
fence, thus eliminating 15 trash and recycling bins being placed in on Maryland in the bike lane, and
eliminating the need for a technical appeal because the collection truck would not have to back up more
than 50 feet.

3. putting bike storage/repair behind the fence in a secure area if needed at all.

4. the south facing wall of the closest units to be approximately 37 feet from the curb. This eliminates
the looming 32’ high, 80 linear foot wall close to the public sidewalk and street. We are not opposed to
having the 3’-6’ graduated view fence located as currently pproposed approximately 17’ from the curb.
This will still provide interaction between the project and the sidewalk/street.

Mr. Oliver said he would discuss the input from the meeting with his clients. We anticipate a reply and a
revision of the site plan fairly quickly, or for a continuance of the Planning Commission agenda item to
be requested to give the developer time to consider changes and to submit a revised site plan.




Page 309
Racelle Escolar

From: Michael Cocanower
Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:57 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Project Z-69-20 Autem Row



HelloͲ

IwouldjustliketosharemyfeedbackregardingtheproposedAutemRowproject(referencedinthesubject)whichis
proposedforMarylandAvenuejustwestof16thStreet.

Ilivejustnorthof14thPlaceandMarylandͲdownthestreetfromtheproposedprojectͲat6510N14thPlace.

WhileIwouldliketoseemoreofthistypeofprojectininfilllocationsthroughtheneighborhood,thisprojecthaswhatI
wouldconsidertobetwoflawswhichhaveexistedforaslongasI'veknownabouttheprojectandhaveNEVERbeen
addressedbythedevelopersinspiteofconcernsrepeatedlyexpressedtothembyneighborhoodgroups,residents,and
eventhePlanningCommittee.

First,theprojecthasinadequateguestparking.InmyopinionthiswillcreateadditionalstreetparkingalongMarylandͲ
analreadyoverlycongestedstreetparkingareaͲmakinganexistingproblemevenworse.Thesevehiclesmakevisibility
gettinginandoutof14thPlaceverydifficultandalsoblockthebikelane.ThecontrastbetweenMarylandeastof16th
Street(wherenostreetparkingisallowed)andwestof16thStreetisstarkintermsofcurbappealandoverall
appearance.Idon'tfeelthisprojectshouldbeapprovedwithlessthantherequiredvisitorparkingspaces.

Second,theprojectdoesnothaveenoughspaceforcommercialtrashpickup.Withoutavariancefromthecitytoallow
garbagetruckstoenterthedevelopment,thatwillmean32trashcontainersalongMarylandweekly(16homesinthe
development,eachwithatrashandrecyclecontainer).Giventheexistingparkingissuesdescribedabovewhichwillbe
madeworsebylackofrequiredguestspaces,I'mnotsurewherethese32containerswillgo.Irunalongthissectionof
Marylandtwiceperday,andalreadyhavetonavigatetraffic,parkedcars,andpedestrians.Adding32trashcanswill
makeitimpossible,andthatdoesn'tevenconsiderhowunsightlyitwillallbe.

IwouldstronglyencourageyouNOTtoapprovethisprojectassubmitted.Ibelievetherearesolutions(manyofwhich
havebeenofferedduringneighborhoodandplanningcommitteemeetings)whichcansolvebothoftheseproblems
(suchasreducingthenumberofunitsintheproposeddevelopment).Thiscouldbeagreatprojectifproperlydesigned,
butIdonotfeelitshouldbeapprovedinitscurrentform.

Thankyouforyourconsideration.

MichaelCocanower




Page1 310
Racelle Escolar

From: Lyndon Hara
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 8:43 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Sandy Grunow; Lyndon M Hara
Subject: Re: Item #20, case number Z-69-20-6 1536 and 1538 East Maryland Avenue



DearSir:
IamaresidentintheMadisonneighborhood(RoseLaneand7thSt.).
Iamwritingtoyouabouttheconcernswehaveabouttheproposeddevelopmentat1536and1538EastMaryland
Avenue.

Ourconcernsare:
1.HighdensitytrashcontainersstoredonMarylandAve2xperweek.
2.Bikelaneblockage.
3.Lesserpropertysetbackrequirement.
4.Lesserminimumparkingspotrequirement.
5.Toohighlivingdensityattheproject.

Pleasehavethedeveloperaddresstheseissueswithanadequateabatementplan.

Shouldyoudesireadditionalinput,pleasefeelfreetocontactme.

Thankyou.

Sincerely,

LyndonHara,CSP
ChandraHara
736ERoseLane
Phoenix,AZ85014
6025181852







Page1 311
Racelle Escolar

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2021 4:32 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Item #20 case number z-69-20-6


I am writing to express my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recycling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland Street, will cause problems for bikers
and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic lane, creating a horrible
risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a special
classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus residents possibly living there,
each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on Maryland Street this takes away the bike lane
and blocks the driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland. It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the developers to
address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street. This is truly scary
when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,
KarolynR.Benger
kbenterpriseconsulting.com[kbenterpriseconsulting.com]

IamofflinefromFridayeveningsuntilSaturdayevenings




Page1 312
Racelle Escolar

From: Pat Mayer
Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2021 12:33 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6



Greetings,
IamwritinginoppositiontotherequestedAutemRowPUD,item20ontheNovember4,2021schedule.

Thedeveloperforthiscondominiumistryingtocram20poundsofflourintoa5poundsack.Sixteenunitsonthesetwo
plotsisseveralunitstoomany,withnoplansforcommunaltrashdumpsters.MarylandAve.isalreadyaproblem,with
toomanypeopleparkingtheircarsoutsideofallowedtimes,andinanarrowshouldernotreallywideenoughforsafe
parking.Iwalkthatwayoftenandjusttheotherdaysawaparkedcarthathadbeenhit,presumablyovernight,
sustainingreardamageandgettingpushedintotheparkedcarinfrontofit.Imaginehowmuchworseiftheresidentsof
AutemRowhavetheir16trashand16recyclebinslinedup,onthesidewalkorinthestreet.Carswilleitherparkthere
andblockthedumpstersorwillparkfurtherdownthestreet,compoundingthealreadyproblematicsituation.Bicyclists
andpedestrianswillencountermoreobstaclesandrisks.

Iftheywouldscalebackthesizeofthedevelopmentandallowforcommunallargedumpstersandroomforthetrucks
tomaneuver,aswellasperhapsmorevisitorparkingspaces,theywouldfindfewerobjectionsfromtheneighborhood.

PatriciaMayer
815E.RoseLane,unit119
Phoenix,AZ85014





Page1 313
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Z-69-20-6 PUD Planning Commission Hearing 11-4-21



From:SandyGrunow
Sent:Monday,November1,20211:15PM
To:PDDZoningAdjustment;SofiaMastikhina
Subject:ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ6PUDPlanningCommissionHearing11Ͳ4Ͳ21

DearChairmanandMembersofthePlanningCommission:

IrepresentthePhoenixMidͲCenturyModernNeighborhoodAssociation.AfterattendingthefirstAutemDevelopement’s
neighborhoodmeetingofJanuary20,2021,myselfandotherneighborhoodleadersmadeseveralattemptstomeetwiththe
Developerandtherepresentinglawfirm.WefinallymetwiththeDevelopersonMarch4,2021,attendedthesubsequent
neighborhoodmeetings,thenmetvirtuallywiththelegalrepresentativeJohnOliveronOctober19th.

FromtheverybeginningwecommunicatedthefollowingconcernswiththeproposedPUD:
Density,height,buildingsetback,onstreettrashcollection,guestparking

Density:16threestoryunitson.87acresfarexceedsthedensityalongMarylandAvenuebetween12thStreetand16thStreet.Is
thisproperuseofthePUDdesignation?AmemberoftheCamelbackEastVillagequestionedthisuseaswell.

Height:Theproposedthreestorytownhouseat35feetinheightisnotinkeepingwiththismidͲcenturymodernneighborhood.
Singlefamilyresidentsandresidentialcomplexesareconcernedabouttheirprivacy.

Buildingsetback:Theproposedsetbackof10feetisdramaticallylessthanothercomplexesalongMarylandAvenuebetween12th
Streetand16thStreet.Thesetbacksare20to27feet.

TrashCollection:Duetotheproposeddensitythereisnoroomforbulktrashcollection.TheDevelopersplanforthetownhouse
residentstotaketheirtrashtothestreetononedayforpickupthesecondday.Thentheindividualrecyclingcontainerswouldbe
rolledoutyetanotherdayforpickup.Keepinmind,thecollectioncontainerswillsitinthebikelanefor3to4daystotaleach
week.Cyclistswillhavetorideintothemotorvehiclelanescreatingasafetyhazardwithpotentialforinjury.The16collectioncans
willcreateahazardasdriversexitingthepropertyfromtheeastandwestdrivewayswillhavetheirviewofEastMaryland
obstructedespeciallyiftheydrivealowprofilevehicle.

GuestParking:TheDevelopersplannedfor4guestparkingspaceswhen8spacesaremoreappropriate.Allowinglessthan8spaces
wouldrequireonthestreetparking.EastMarylandAvenuecontainsbikelanesonboththenorthandsouthsides.Maryland
AvenueisverybusyattimesespeciallywhenMadisonTraditionalAcademyandRoseLaneSchoolsareinsession.MarylandAvenue
isalsotheroutetoMadisonMeadows.Duringtwomeetingswiththedeveloper’slegalrepresentativeweweretoldthatguestsare
resourcefulandcanparkinsurroundingparkinglots.Trespassingshouldnotbeencouraged.

WeneighborshavegoneoutofourwaytocommunicatewiththeDevelopersandtheirlegalrepresentative.Mostmatterscouldbe
resolvedifthedensitywasreducedbytwounits.TheDevelopers’responsewasthe16unitswerenecessarytoarriveattheir
desiredreturnoninvestment(ROI).Isuggesttheirproposedbuildisnotappropriateforthissite.

Lastly,belowpleaseseeaphotooftheDeveloper’ssigncommunicatingthedesignatedhearingdatestothecommunity.One
cannotseethesignfromthestreetwithoutenteringthepropertybehindthetallhedge.Whyisthisrequirednotificationbeing
hidden?

SandyGrunow
602Ͳ819Ͳ1482





Page1 314













Page2 315
Racelle Escolar

From: art schneider
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 2:15 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6- ( Autem Row Pud)



Iamopposedtothisdevelopmentunlessafewchangesoccur.

1.Reducethedevelopmentbytwounits.
2.Moreguestparkingspacesmadeavailable.
3.Provideareaforenclosedtrashcontainment.IamagainsthavingtrashandrecyclebinsonMarylandAve.

Thankyou,
ArtSchneider
6504N14thPl
Phoenix85014




Page1 316
ZsϭϭͬϭͬϮϬϮϭ

Phoenix Historic Neighborhoods Coalition




HISTORIC FRANKLIN SCHOOL
October30,2021

MembersofthePlanningCommission
RE:Item#20,Case#ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ06
1536Ͳ1538E.MarylandAvenue
Agenda:11/4/2021

DearMembersofthePhoenixPlanningCommission,

Iwriteasanadvocateforpreservationthroughoutourcity.ThereareneighborhoodsinPhoenixthat
mayneverhaveachancetopreserveimportantearly20thCenturyandsignificantMidͲCenturybuildings
ifincompatible,poorlythoughtͲoutdevelopmentssuchasthisoneproposedfor1536Ͳ1538East
MarylandAvenueareallowedtoflourishat35’inheight.

Homeownersinthevicinityoftheproposeddevelopmenthaveindicatedtomethattheareabetween
7thStreetand16thStreethasnumerousresidencesofhistoricsignificance.

Forexample:thePalmLaneGardensCondominiumsat1441EastMarylandAvenue,with25singlestory
unitswasbuiltin1958.ThereareseveralothersingleͲstorypropertiesalongEastMarylandAvenue
datingbackto1925.

Pleasedenythisoutofscaledevelopmentat1536Ͳ1538EastMarylandAvenue.

Thankyouforyourtimeandconsiderationofthesefacts.


G.G.George,President
EncantoCitizensAssociation&PhoenixHistoricNeighborhoodsCoalition
1102W.PalmLane
Phoenix,AZ85007
602Ͳ252Ͳ3151






Page 317
Racelle Escolar

Subject: FW: Addendum to previous email - Item 20, Z-69-20-6



From:MaryMulligan
Sent:Monday,November1,20211:11PM
To:PDDPlanningCommission
Cc:SofiaMastikhina
Subject:AddendumtopreviousemailͲItem20,ZͲ69Ͳ20Ͳ6

PlanningCommissionͲ

IamsendinganaddendumtoanemailofoppositionthatIsentearlierthismorning.I’dlikeforyoutoexaminethe
followingtwophotographs.

Aftersendingyoutheearlieremail,Iwantedtocheckoutthelocationofthesubjectpropertyonceagain.BeforeI
realizedit,Ihadcompletelypassedtheproperty.Thepositionofthezoningsignisdisgraceful.Thankyouforthe
opportunitytocommunicatewithyouonceagain.

ͲMary

ViewfromMarylandAvenue,lookingeastward.Interestingthatthe“Available”signissostrategicallyplaced.Compare
tothezoningsigninthebackground:




Page1 318


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




Page2 319




Dear Planning Commissioners:

We are writing regarding case Z-69-20-6, item 20 (1536 and 1538 E. Maryland Avenue). We are opposed to the granting
of a PUD.

For the record, we walk and drive regularly past this location, and by the way, even though we were updated about this
proposal several times by a concerned neighbor, we didn’t see the posted zoning sign for months due to its
unconventional placement in an obscure spot. We were surprised to realize we’d passed it many times in our car as well
as on foot without noticing it.

The applicant’s narrative tells us that so many things are wrong with this lot that the only way this project can be
completed is by changing the rules - numerous rules - through a PUD.

To the detriment of the surrounding community, the applicant wants to change characteristics including:

x Parking
x Density

Page3 320
x Height
x Setbacks
x Lot coverage

Clearly, the parcel is not appropriate for the proposed project when so many factors are incompatible with the project plan.
Furthermore, in our opinion, a PUD is not appropriate for a lot of only .89 acres.

Benefit to a developer should not come at the expense of the surrounding community; a project should be mutually
beneficial to both.

Apparently, however, this developer expects surrounding businesses to accommodate guest parking that the developer is
in part unwilling to provide.

Apparently the developer is unconcerned with pedestrians and cyclists who use the sidewalk and bike lane, and drivers
who park along the 160’ of frontage on Maryland (minus the width of the project’s two driveways), who would be adversely
impacted because the developer does not plan to provide bulk trash pickup, as is done in nearby complexes.

Imagine the nuisance and aesthetics of 16 trash barrels lined up 4’ apart along this small stretch of Maryland on one day,
and 16 recyclables cans on another - and potentially up to 16 cans of curbside green organics containers if future
residents are concerned about the environment!

Apparently the developer thinks this project merits an exception to the typical streetside setbacks in the area (about 25’
along Maryland), requesting a significant decrease to a mere 10’. (How does this benefit the neighborhood?)

Neighbors have expressed legitimate concerns regarding this project through appropriate channels. If the developer is
unwilling to modify plans out of respect for the neighborhood or if the project is not financially feasible under existing
zoning, surely a more appropriate site can be located in this, the fifth large city in the country, that will result in a project
that satisfies both the surrounding community and the requirements of this ambitious project.

Please deny this zoning change request.


Sincerely,

John E. Hathaway
Mary K. Mulligan
125 E. Maryland Ave.
Phoenix, AZ 85012




Page4 321
Racelle Escolar

From: Larry Whitesell
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 9:11 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Opposition to Z-69-20-6 Autem Row
Attachments: Written Submission.pdf; Exhibit A - Lot Sales.pdf; Exhibit D - Response to Set-backs - 2nd Review.pdf; Exhibit C -
Front Setback Comparison.pdf; Exhibit B - Comparison Setbacks.pdf; Exhibit F - Sheets re Centralized
Collection.pdf; Exhibit E - Trash Can Placement.pdf; Exhibit F - SW Standard Page 4 RETROFIT.pdf



Phoenix Planning Commission
Submitted via email: pdd.planningcomm@phoenix.gov November 1, 2021

Rezoning Case: Z-69-20-6 Autem Row PUD
Meeting Date: November 4, 2021 
Agenda Item: 20


Dear Planning Commission Members:

I have been involved with the above PUD application since reaching out to the developers for a meeting that
was held March 4th. The meeting participants told the developers at the time, and we still agree, that we
support a development of this nature at this location. However, there were then, and still are, a few areas of
concern. 

During our preparation for the public hearing process we tracked three project proposals submitted by the
applicant, the Zoning Staff reviews of those proposals, the applicant responses, and the Staff Report that
resulted. Our analysis found that several important concerns stated by Zoning Staff are not resolved. We share
those concerns. These include lot coverage, front setback, guest parking, and trash/recycling collection.
Bicycle storage and repair is another concern of affected neighbors. Public safety was not directly addressed
by Zoning Staff but must also be considered. It is impacted by all of the above unresolved concerns.

It is notable that the Camelback East VPC voted 8-3 to deny the application. It is rare for Camelback East to
not just deny, but to so overwhelmingly deny, a rezoning case.

Especially notable is that member Daniel Sharaby made the motion to deny, and stated that in his time on the
Camelback East VPC, he remembers voting against a rezoning case maybe 1 other time. His stated concerns
are: 1. inadequate guest parking; 2. the applicant stated guests would find parking on nearby commercial lots;
3. using resident parking allocation of 1.5 spaces per 2 bedroom unit to make up for lack of required guest
parking; 4. not 1 neighbor wrote or spoke in favor of the project.

Another member, Linda Bair, stated that she is concerned about the application for PUDs that do not comply
with the purpose of a PUD – for developers to be able to put together projects on two or more parcels that
have different zoning categories. She stated developers are using the PUDs as a way to build too high and too
dense than would otherwise be allowed.

We have been told that the applicant is planning to revise the project to address the issue of guest parking.
However, as of submitting this statement of opposition, that revision has not been shared with us.

The issues of Lot Coverage, Building Setback, Guest Parking, Trash/Recycling Collection, and Safety are
addressed in the attached review of Zoning Staff concerns, applicant responses, and realities. Several exhibits
are included to illustrate the relevant points.

Your careful review of this information is appreciated. I look forward to speaking on this case at the upcoming
meeting.

Page1 322
Sincerely,
LarryWhitesell,CoͲchair
thePEAKNA
602Ͳ370Ͳ8453




Page2 323
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 1


I. Lot Coverage
1st Review – Zoning Staff
Lot coverage should not exceed 35% net
Status of patios being part of 100% lot coverage for individual lot sales
Applicant Response: Resubmittal shows a lot coverage of forty-six percent based on net area.

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
46% lot coverage is still a concern
100% lot coverage for individual lots still remains
Recommend maximum lot coverage for individual lots and minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
46% maximum lot coverage based on net lot area
Minimum individual lot coverage % is not being proposed at this point in time

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report
The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present to both the
east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling between those
permitted on the two adjacent properties.

REALITY
x The Staff Report is comparing what could have been built on adjacent properties per zoning
districts, not what was actually built. Actual developments have less density than maximum
allowable.
x “…at this point in time.” is an opportunity for the applicant to convert to individual lot sales In
the future. In fact, the Site Plan, pg 7, Proposed Development – PUD
“LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES” (Exhibit A)

II. Building Setbacks
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Maximum Building Setbacks – Divide into perimeter and individual lots
Consider a minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time
Yards have varying depth with 10' setback as minimum
nd
2 Review – Zoning Staff
Staff still not supportive of 10' setback along Maryland. Average setback on Maryland is 30';
closest building (east) is 20' from property line
Applicant Response:
x Setback is more than 3 properties, property address provided as evidence
x More advanced architecture than the properties listed above; the impact to Maryland Avenue
will not be as substantial
x 6'6" more between property line and sidewalk
x Open fence, lush landscape and bench

Page 324
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 2


rd
3 Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report – This concern is not addressed

VPC Presentation
In rebuttal to my evidence that the 3 properties cited as examples of having closer setbacks, Mr.
Oliver stated that he was referring to Landscape setbacks.

REALITY:
x Setbacks on properties on the east, west and south side of the proposed development are
farther from the sidewalk. (Exhibit B)
x The buildings of the properties cited by the applicant are farther from the sidewalk than the
proposed development. (Exhibit C)
x 2 of the 3 properties cited by the applicant are side yard set-backs. The property addresses
are not on Maryland.
x The written document in which Mr. Oliver cited the 3 properties as having less setbacks is
under Building Setbacks, not the section on Landscape setbacks. (Exhibit D)
x The proposed development parallels Maryland with a building wall of of approximately 80
linear feet, 32 feet high within 17’ of the sidewalk. This is far more negative impact than the 3
low profile, single story homes set farther back from the sidewalk cited by the applicant.

III. Parking
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
1. Give ratio of bicycle parking
2. Guest parking should be provided
Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted
Applicant Response:
Bike storage and repair has been added

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
Staff not supportive of reduced guest parking
Applicant Response:
Guest spaces conforms with similar properties
Number of guest spaces on similar properties is stated
Ride share has increased
Cross-parking agreements with commercial properties could be an option

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Since VPC denial the applicant has stated that they will reduce the number of units by 1 and
increase the guest parking by 2 making the total 6.




Page 325
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 3


REALITY:
x Parking on Maryland is prohibited and causes a safety hazard due to the bike lane
x Guest parking on similar properties was not accurately counted
x Guest parking on similar properties is inadequate and is an on-going concern of residents
living in those communities
x Reduction of 1 – 2 bedroom unit reduces the requirement by .5; 7.5 required
x Adding 2 guest spaces makes the total 6, still below the requirement

IV. Public Works – Trash Collection
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Trash collection needs more info e.g. impact on streetscape, will concrete pads be needed
Applicant Response:
Approached Zoning Staff about a technical appeal to allow trucks to backup more than 50 ft.
Will have 16 individual cans twice a week if appeal not approved

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
All comments from first review shall apply
Applicant Response:
Allows for 16 individual collection bins for trash and recycling

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

REALITY:
x 16 trash/recycling cans placed in the bike path starting the evening before collection and
ending, potentially, the day after collection is unsightly and is a safety hazard
x The City ordinance states that collection bins be placed at the curb, not on the sidewalk
(Exhibit E)
x No other multifamily housing developments with access to Maryland require residents to
place trash/recycling on the street or on the sidewalk
x Megan Sheets, Project Manager for the Public Works Department offered 2 solutions to
individual trash collection bins:
Variance for trash/recycling enclose in the landscape setback
Technical appeal to allow collection truck to back up more than 50 ft
She states:
“A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier for each resident instead of
wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse & another day recycle) to
Maryland.” (Exhibit F)




Page 326
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 327
EXHIBIT B

North side of Maryland
East Office Building:
11’ to wall
26.25’ to building

West Residential
Development:
37.75’ to wall
36.5’ to wall
Page 328

South side of Maryland
Right to Left
Apartment Building:
32.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
25.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
32’ to building
Note that the Single Family Residences directly across Maryland from the subject property are single story,
and set at angles providing extensive open space rather than a 35’ barricade looming within 17’ of the street.
EXHIBIT C


6348 N. 13th St
6502 N. 12th St (APN 161-12-205)
(APN 161-07-059) 13’ side walk to fence
28.5’ sidewalk to eave 22’ sidewalk to eave




Page 329




6502 N. 13th St
(APN 161-07-019)
4’ sidewalk to fence
27’ sidewalk to building
Side yard setback

6502 N. 12th St
(APN 161-07-059)
28.5’ sidewalk to eave
Side yard setback
Exhibit D

to account for the envisioned patio spaces.

Response: The project narrative has been updated to state a maximum lot coverage of forty-
six (46) percent based on net lot area. We are not proposing a minimum individual lot
coverage percentage at this point in time.

b. Minimum Building Setbacks: Please divide this section into perimeter setbacks and
individual lot setbacks (repeat comment from 1st review). For individual lots, specify what
is considered the front yard (internal facing).

Response: We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time.


i. General comment: Staff is still not supportive of such a reduced setback (10 feet)
along Maryland Avenue. Setbacks along this street average at 30 feet, with the closest
building (to the east of the subject site) at 20 feet from the property line.

Response: The proposed setback is compatible with other properties along Maryland
Ave. Specifically, the proposed development would be setback further than the
buildings located at 6348 N. 13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-12-205), 6502 N.
13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-07-019); and 6502 N. 12th St., Phoenix, 85014
(APN: 161-06-059); therefore, the proposed setback mirrors the setback enjoyed by
other developments in the area. Moreover, the proposed development features more
advance architectural than the properties listed above; therefore, the impact to
Maryland Avenue will not be as substantial. Additionally, there is a minimum of 6’-
6” of further landscaped zone to the south of our property line before the sidewalk
which provides additional buffer to the property from the street.

Further, the proposed setback allows the development to maximize its architectural
potential. The setback along Maryland Avenue will feature lush landscaping, an
‘open fence’ (as described in the narrative, and a central bench area.

ii. Side Setbacks: Please be advised that no portion of the building may overhang
above utility easements. Keep this in mind when planning utilities on the site.

Response: Understood. We appreciate the comment.

c. Landscape Setbacks:
i. Street Side: Staff’s concern regarding an insufficient landscape setback along
Maryland Avenue remains.

Response: The closest unit to Maryland Ave. will be setback seventeen feet (17’)
minimum from the Maryland Ave. streetscape. The developers will maintain the area
south of their property line and north of the Maryland Ave. streetscape so that it
mirrors the Property’s landscape setback and does not fall into disrepair. Therefore,
the actual landscape setback will larger than actually represented.

Further, the Property’s landscape setback will feature a community bench and a water


Page 330
Exhibit E

11:54 AM (5
minutes ago)
Eric MacDonald
to me

Hi Larry,

In order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations, containers
should not be placed on the sidewalk. Containers should be placed right up against the
sidewalk or curb and spaced four feet apart from each other (trash container 4 feet from
recycle container). I know this one can be a little confusing, hopefully this clears things
up for you.

If you have any other questions or concerns let me know. If not have a wonderful day!




Page 331
Exhibit F




From: Megan Sheets
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Z-69-20
To: Larry Whitesell
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina


Larry,

The site plan states the 16 townhome units will be lot sales, therefore the City will be
collecting for both refuse and recycle. A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier
for each resident instead of wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse &
another day recycle) to Maryland. Enclosures cannot be located in the landscape
setback (without a variance) which makes it difficult to place towards the front where a
truck could possibly collect and back up.

If you take the variance route, send me a revised site plan showing the enclosure
location so I can approve. Sixteen units will require one 4 cy bin for refuse and one 4 cy
bin for recycle. Attached is our infill enclosure that could be used for this
community. See figure G.


Megan Sheets
Project Manager
Public Works Department
Working remotely
Cell: 602.896.7751




Page 332
Page 333
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 1


I. Lot Coverage
1st Review – Zoning Staff
Lot coverage should not exceed 35% net
Status of patios being part of 100% lot coverage for individual lot sales
Applicant Response: Resubmittal shows a lot coverage of forty-six percent based on net area.

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
46% lot coverage is still a concern
100% lot coverage for individual lots still remains
Recommend maximum lot coverage for individual lots and minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
46% maximum lot coverage based on net lot area
Minimum individual lot coverage % is not being proposed at this point in time

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report
The proposal is compatible with the multifamily residential zoning districts present to both the
east and west of the site, with the maximum proposed density falling between those
permitted on the two adjacent properties.

REALITY
x The Staff Report is comparing what could have been built on adjacent properties per zoning
districts, not what was actually built. Actual developments have less density than maximum
allowable.
x “…at this point in time.” is an opportunity for the applicant to convert to individual lot sales In
the future. In fact, the Site Plan, pg 7, Proposed Development – PUD
“LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES” (Exhibit A)

II. Building Setbacks
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Maximum Building Setbacks – Divide into perimeter and individual lots
Consider a minimum front yard setback
Applicant Response:
We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time
Yards have varying depth with 10' setback as minimum
nd
2 Review – Zoning Staff
Staff still not supportive of 10' setback along Maryland. Average setback on Maryland is 30';
closest building (east) is 20' from property line
Applicant Response:
x Setback is more than 3 properties, property address provided as evidence
x More advanced architecture than the properties listed above; the impact to Maryland Avenue
will not be as substantial
x 6'6" more between property line and sidewalk
x Open fence, lush landscape and bench

Page 334
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 2


rd
3 Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Staff Report – This concern is not addressed

VPC Presentation
In rebuttal to my evidence that the 3 properties cited as examples of having closer setbacks, Mr.
Oliver stated that he was referring to Landscape setbacks.

REALITY:
x Setbacks on properties on the east, west and south side of the proposed development are
farther from the sidewalk. (Exhibit B)
x The buildings of the properties cited by the applicant are farther from the sidewalk than the
proposed development. (Exhibit C)
x 2 of the 3 properties cited by the applicant are side yard set-backs. The property addresses
are not on Maryland.
x The written document in which Mr. Oliver cited the 3 properties as having less setbacks is
under Building Setbacks, not the section on Landscape setbacks. (Exhibit D)
x The proposed development parallels Maryland with a building wall of of approximately 80
linear feet, 32 feet high within 17’ of the sidewalk. This is far more negative impact than the 3
low profile, single story homes set farther back from the sidewalk cited by the applicant.

III. Parking
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
1. Give ratio of bicycle parking
2. Guest parking should be provided
Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted
Applicant Response:
Bike storage and repair has been added

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
Staff not supportive of reduced guest parking
Applicant Response:
Guest spaces conforms with similar properties
Number of guest spaces on similar properties is stated
Ride share has increased
Cross-parking agreements with commercial properties could be an option

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

Since VPC denial the applicant has stated that they will reduce the number of units by 1 and
increase the guest parking by 2 making the total 6.




Page 335
Whitesell Submission November 1, 2021
Z-69-20-6
Page 3


REALITY:
x Parking on Maryland is prohibited and causes a safety hazard due to the bike lane
x Guest parking on similar properties was not accurately counted
x Guest parking on similar properties is inadequate and is an on-going concern of residents
living in those communities
x Reduction of 1 – 2 bedroom unit reduces the requirement by .5; 7.5 required
x Adding 2 guest spaces makes the total 6, still below the requirement

IV. Public Works – Trash Collection
st
1 Review – Zoning Staff
Trash collection needs more info e.g. impact on streetscape, will concrete pads be needed
Applicant Response:
Approached Zoning Staff about a technical appeal to allow trucks to backup more than 50 ft.
Will have 16 individual cans twice a week if appeal not approved

2nd Review – Zoning Staff
All comments from first review shall apply
Applicant Response:
Allows for 16 individual collection bins for trash and recycling

3rd Review – Zoning Staff: INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
All comments from the first review shall apply

REALITY:
x 16 trash/recycling cans placed in the bike path starting the evening before collection and
ending, potentially, the day after collection is unsightly and is a safety hazard
x The City ordinance states that collection bins be placed at the curb, not on the sidewalk
(Exhibit E)
x No other multifamily housing developments with access to Maryland require residents to
place trash/recycling on the street or on the sidewalk
x Megan Sheets, Project Manager for the Public Works Department offered 2 solutions to
individual trash collection bins:
Variance for trash/recycling enclose in the landscape setback
Technical appeal to allow collection truck to back up more than 50 ft
She states:
“A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier for each resident instead of
wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse & another day recycle) to
Maryland.” (Exhibit F)




Page 336
Exhibit A




LOT SALES PROPOSED: YES
Page 337
EXHIBIT B

North side of Maryland
East Office Building:
11’ to wall
26.25’ to building

West Residential
Development:
37.75’ to wall
36.5’ to wall
Page 338

South side of Maryland
Right to Left
Apartment Building:
32.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
25.5’ to building
Single Family Res:
32’ to building
Note that the Single Family Residences directly across Maryland from the subject property are single story,
and set at angles providing extensive open space rather than a 35’ barricade looming within 17’ of the street.
EXHIBIT C


6348 N. 13th St
6502 N. 12th St (APN 161-12-205)
(APN 161-07-059) 13’ side walk to fence
28.5’ sidewalk to eave 22’ sidewalk to eave




Page 339




6502 N. 13th St
(APN 161-07-019)
4’ sidewalk to fence
27’ sidewalk to building
Side yard setback

6502 N. 12th St
(APN 161-07-059)
28.5’ sidewalk to eave
Side yard setback
Exhibit D

to account for the envisioned patio spaces.

Response: The project narrative has been updated to state a maximum lot coverage of forty-
six (46) percent based on net lot area. We are not proposing a minimum individual lot
coverage percentage at this point in time.

b. Minimum Building Setbacks: Please divide this section into perimeter setbacks and
individual lot setbacks (repeat comment from 1st review). For individual lots, specify what
is considered the front yard (internal facing).

Response: We are not proposing individual lots at this point in time.


i. General comment: Staff is still not supportive of such a reduced setback (10 feet)
along Maryland Avenue. Setbacks along this street average at 30 feet, with the closest
building (to the east of the subject site) at 20 feet from the property line.

Response: The proposed setback is compatible with other properties along Maryland
Ave. Specifically, the proposed development would be setback further than the
buildings located at 6348 N. 13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-12-205), 6502 N.
13th St., Phoenix 85014 (APN: 161-07-019); and 6502 N. 12th St., Phoenix, 85014
(APN: 161-06-059); therefore, the proposed setback mirrors the setback enjoyed by
other developments in the area. Moreover, the proposed development features more
advance architectural than the properties listed above; therefore, the impact to
Maryland Avenue will not be as substantial. Additionally, there is a minimum of 6’-
6” of further landscaped zone to the south of our property line before the sidewalk
which provides additional buffer to the property from the street.

Further, the proposed setback allows the development to maximize its architectural
potential. The setback along Maryland Avenue will feature lush landscaping, an
‘open fence’ (as described in the narrative, and a central bench area.

ii. Side Setbacks: Please be advised that no portion of the building may overhang
above utility easements. Keep this in mind when planning utilities on the site.

Response: Understood. We appreciate the comment.

c. Landscape Setbacks:
i. Street Side: Staff’s concern regarding an insufficient landscape setback along
Maryland Avenue remains.

Response: The closest unit to Maryland Ave. will be setback seventeen feet (17’)
minimum from the Maryland Ave. streetscape. The developers will maintain the area
south of their property line and north of the Maryland Ave. streetscape so that it
mirrors the Property’s landscape setback and does not fall into disrepair. Therefore,
the actual landscape setback will larger than actually represented.

Further, the Property’s landscape setback will feature a community bench and a water


Page 340
Exhibit E

11:54 AM (5
minutes ago)
Eric MacDonald
to me

Hi Larry,

In order to comply with ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) regulations, containers
should not be placed on the sidewalk. Containers should be placed right up against the
sidewalk or curb and spaced four feet apart from each other (trash container 4 feet from
recycle container). I know this one can be a little confusing, hopefully this clears things
up for you.

If you have any other questions or concerns let me know. If not have a wonderful day!




Page 341
Exhibit F




From: Megan Sheets
Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 8:30 AM
Subject: RE: Z-69-20
To: Larry Whitesell
Cc: Sofia Mastikhina


Larry,

The site plan states the 16 townhome units will be lot sales, therefore the City will be
collecting for both refuse and recycle. A centralize enclosure would make it a lot easier
for each resident instead of wheeling a 90-gallon bin twice a week (one day refuse &
another day recycle) to Maryland. Enclosures cannot be located in the landscape
setback (without a variance) which makes it difficult to place towards the front where a
truck could possibly collect and back up.

If you take the variance route, send me a revised site plan showing the enclosure
location so I can approve. Sixteen units will require one 4 cy bin for refuse and one 4 cy
bin for recycle. Attached is our infill enclosure that could be used for this
community. See figure G.


Megan Sheets
Project Manager
Public Works Department
Working remotely
Cell: 602.896.7751




Page 342
Page 343
Racelle Escolar

From: William Reimers
Sent: Monday, November 1, 2021 4:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (AUTEM Row PUD)



Tothecommittee

Thisdevelopmentshouldnotbeapprovedinitscurrentstate.Myfamilyfrequentlywalks,ridesandrunsinfrontofthe
lot.Theprospectofdozensoftrashcontainersandmorestreetparkingisnotsafe.Itwouldbemuchbetterforthe
developertoadjustforthetrashandparkingneedsoftheirresidentsashasbeenrecommendedbymanypeopleand
groupsinourarea.Thankyouforprotectingourfamiliesandqualityoflife.

Regards,
WillReimers
6503N14thPl,Phoenix,AZ85014






Page1 344
Hello, My name is Dan Trozzi. I live at 6746 N. 12th Way, Phoenix, AZ 85014. I
have lived in this neighborhood for 39 years and I am the president of Squaw Peak
Heights Neighborhood Association.
Over the years I have seen many changes in this neighborhood. Mostly good. As
the neighborhood matures, we (my neighbors and I) have worked for positive,
compatible changes, while trying to preserve its original character.
I am not opposed to this development but there are several significant issues that
affect the livability, walkability and safety for this neighborhood. Issues that mean
a lot to this neighborhood and to the City of Phoenix.
Guest parking has been a critical issue since Neighborhood Leaders met with the
developers on March 4, during which this was addressed. This is their first multi-
unit project and oversights were apparent. It was obvious to all Neighborhood
Leaders that 4 guest spaces are acutely inadequate. Suggestions to solve this
dilemma were made at this meeting. However, there has been little credible
response. Disregard for the needs of our neighborhood to provide guest parking
and trash removal on-site has continued.

Overflow guests parking will end up parking on Maryland Ave.
As cautioned in the 1st Review of May 28 from City Planning, quote, “Maryland
has a bike lane so no on-street parking may be permitted.” In fact, Maryland has a
bike lane on both sides of the street. It’s a major bike path for the City. This is not
an option. In fact, the only response by the developer to the no parking caution in
the 1st Review was that “bike storage and repair had been added,” completely
unrelated, no response to the no parking caution was submitted. Not addressing
this to the full extent needed has continued.

Parking is prohibited on bike lanes. Maryland has two bike lanes. Logically, to
preserve the treasured atmosphere on Maryland enjoyed by walkers as well, the
proposed development should be self-contained as other communities are. Parking
in bike lanes endangers recreational users and passing drivers. It creates
opportunities for accidents. As suggested March 4, a reduction in the number of
units would resolve these issues, ideally two to accommodate more guest parking
and an enclosed commercial trash pickup area. We know this can be done. Autem
would be a self-contained community like the others. Anything less will be unsafe
and unsightly. This was suggested as early as March 4 at the meeting with the
developers. It is the only solution that makes sense for everyone.




Page 345
The 2nd Review of June 30 stated: “Staff is not supportive of the proposed
reduction in required guest spaces.” The developer response contained percentages
of guest spaces at other communities in support of the planned four. One example
was for adjacent Maryland Village East stating 5 guest spaces for 18
units. Actually, they have 7 and comments from this community are that 7 are not
enough, which decidedly supports the need for more than 4 at the proposed
development. Also, the use of ride sharing suggested by the developer as an option
cannot be predicted nor assumed as a substitute for lack of guest spaces.

The 3rd Review of August 20 contained no reference to the guest parking issue.

The reality is all communities along Maryland are self-contained, providing guest
parking and on-site trash pickup. This is why Maryland has a clean and inviting
appearance with a reputation as one of the loveliest streets in Central Phoenix. Just
one community like Autem passing off its own responsibilities for parking and
trash to the surrounding neighborhood would have a huge damaging impact on all
of Maryland. Many emails of deep concern from the public on these issues have
been sent to the Zoning staff.

We have advocated for two units to be removed that allows for the trash and
recycling containers to be properly stored and to have an adequate number of guest
parking spots. The developer has said it would reduce one unit. This still does not
resolve the problem of bin storage and adequate guest parking spots.
We are offering a Solution: If this development deleted 1 unit on the east and 1
unit on the west. It would provide:
1. More compatible setbacks with current neighborhood properties
2. Reduces lot coverage more in line with the rest of Maryland Ave.
3. Eliminates 1 guest parking space required (14 2/bd units x .5 = 7)
4. Makes space for 3 additional guest parking spaces that meets the requirement
5. And Provides space for centralized enclosure for refuse/recycling bins
RETURN OF INVESTMENT IS THE SAME PROFIT MARGIN WITH 14 OR
16 UNITS
Construction cost/unit: 1750 sq ft / $550K = $320 sq ft / 2 = $157 sq ft
16 Units Construction cost: $157/sq ft X 1750 sq ft = $274,750 X 16 Units = $4.4
M ( rounded)




Page 346
Revenue: 16 Units X $550 K = $8.8 M (2 X ROI)
14 Units
Construction cost: $157/ sq ft X 1750 sq ft = $274, 750 X 14 = $3.85 M
Revenue: 14 units X $550 K = $7.7 M (2X ROI)
Also,
.5 guest parking space is required for every 2 bedroom unit.
16 units is 8 spaces; 4 spaces provided on current plan
15 units is 7.5 spaces. Eliminating 1 unit makes room for 2 spaces.
So the revised plan would be 6 spaces, 1.5 short.
Eliminating 1 more unit would reduce the requirement to 7 spaces and make room
for 2 more spaces, bringing the total to 8 spaces, 1 more than required. That's
good!

A Camelback East Village Planning Committee member had concerns that the
developer mentioned that guests could find spaces on commercial lots in the area.
This is not acceptable to the neighborhood or I am sure to the commercial
properties. Guests could also turn to use guest parking spots at neighboring
complexes.
This small change, reducing one more unit, provides a simple, easy path for
compliance and acceptance by the neighborhood.
Thank you




Page 347
Racelle Escolar

From: Mary Ann Pikulas
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 3:55 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Mary Ann Pikulas
Subject: Z-69-20-6 Autem Row PUD



DearChairmanandPlanningCommissionMembers:

Guest parking has been a critical issue since meeting with the two developers of this project on March 4 of this
year, during which the lack of guest parking was addressed. This is the first multi-unit project for these
developers and oversights were apparent. It was obvious to all attending Neighborhood Leaders that 4 guest
spaces for 16 units would be acutely inadequate. Actually, only 3 spaces would be fully available as one would
be reserved with the required disabled designation. The required guest spaces are 8 for 16 units. 

Suggestions to solve this dilemma, discussed below, were made early on at this meeting. However, there was
no credible response to follow until after the Camelback East Village Planning Committee decision to not
approve this application on October 5, a vote of 8-3. Disregard for the needs of our neighborhood to provide
adequate guest parking continued until then and still continues for on-site trash removal. As for this, the plan
for 32 unsightly and unhealthy trash bins lined up over two days on Maryland Ave where none now exist
continues. It’s one of the attractive features of Maryland, no trash bins. 


Unit reduction was presented to the developers at our March meeting to resolve the guest parking and trash
removal deficiencies but was resoundingly rejected and continued to be at neighborhood meetings. Removing
two units would add more parking and allow space for an on-site, enclosed trash containment and removal
area, problems solved. Autem would be self-contained as other communities on Maryland are, problem
solved. Following the Oct 5 Camelback Committee meeting, the developers finally offered to remove one unit
to provide two more guest spaces, period. This would mean 6 guest parking spaces, 5 for full use. Six is still
not the required number nor is it adequate. No updated site plan has yet to be submitted to reflect this
change. Removing two units would still be required to meet neighborhood needs. 

The parking issue is - where will drivers go to park when the available spaces that are planned are full? Not on
Maryland!

Ascautionedinthe1st Review of May 28 from City Planning, quote,“Maryland has a bike lane so no on-street
parking may be permitted.” In fact, Maryland has a bike lane on each side of the street as it is a major bike
path from the Dreamy Draw area to the west side of Phoenix. The very limited timed parking allowed by signs
is on a very short section of Maryland and constantly abused with illegally parked cars. Parking here is not an
option! Except for mention at the June 2 neighborhood meeting of a possible lease of 4 spaces at the adjacent
commercial building, a temporary measure at best fraught with problems, the guest parking overflow issue has
not been addressed at all except for reference by the legal representative that drivers will be creative and use
nearby commercial and business lots. Really?!?

In fact, the only response by the developer to the no parking caution in the 1st Review was that “bike storage
and repair had been added,” completely unrelated. There was no response to the no parking caution. Again,
this critical issue has yet to be addressed. The property is very small, under .90 acre. The question is, where
will drivers go to park, whether visiting or on business, when the spaces, whether 3 or 5, are taken, which will
be a common occurrence with so few planned. One need only ask the other nearby communities how often
their spaces are used. 

The2nd Review of June 30 from staff rightly stated: “Staff is not supportive of the proposed reduction in required
guest spaces.” The response received contained percentages of guest spaces in relation to units at other
communities in support of the planned four. The adjacent Maryland Village East was quoted with 5 guest
Page1 348
spaces for 18 units. Actually, they have 7 and comments from this community are that 7 are not enough,
which decidedly supports the need for more spaces at the proposed development. The use of ride sharing
suggested by the developer or bicycles as options cannot be predicted nor assumed as substitutes for lack of
guest spaces. 

The 3rd Review of August 20 contained no reference to the guest parking issue.

TherealityisallcommunitiesalongMarylandareselfͲcontained,providingtrash pickup and adequate guest spaces
on-site. This is why Maryland has a clean and inviting appearance with a reputation as one of the loveliest
streets in Central Phoenix. Just one community like Autem pushing its own on-site responsibilities for parking
and trash onto the surrounding neighborhood would have a huge negative impact on all of Maryland. It’s
located near the entrance to Maryland from 16th St. and what happens there would negatively set the tone for
the entire stretch of Maryland to 12th St. We are very proud of our street and do what we can to maintain its
cleanliness and attractiveness. What this project offers as planned would simply degrade the neighborhood
we value. 

Besides meeting with the developers, many emails of deep concern from various communities and residents
were sent to the Zoning staff. Other communities were built before the current parking ordinance and grand-
fathered in when revised, some granted variances. This development will not be grand-fathered in and will
have .50 factor for 16 units in place, 8 guest spaces. 

Parkingisprohibitedonbikelanes.Marylandhastwobikelanes.Again,wherewillpeoplepark?Logically,topreserve
thetreasuredatmospherealongMarylandenjoyedbyresidentsandthemanywhobike,walkandrunalongit,the
proposedprojectmustbeselfͲcontained.Allotherscommunitiesare.

MarylandhasbeencitedasanoparkingpermittedstreetbyCityPlanning.Parkinginbikelanesisnotanoption,
endangeringrecreationalusersandpassingdrivers.TurningontoMarylandfromourcommunitiesisanotherhazardas
parkedcarswouldblockourview,forcingustoinchout,makingturnsverydangerous.Wehaveexperiencedthiswith
illegallyparkedcars.

Areductioninthenumberofunitsbytwowouldresolvebothparkingandtrashbinissuesandgreatlyalleviatethe
alarmingconcernsofMarylandcommunities.Itwouldprovidespaceforadditionalguestparkingandanenclosed
commercialtrashenclosure.AutemwouldthenbeaselfͲcontainedcommunityliketheothersthatgiveMarylandAve
itsenviableuniquenessthatattractsbuyers.Thisresultwewouldwelcome.Anything less will be unsafe and
unsightly, negatively impacting our neighborhood significantly. 

Unit reduction was suggested as early as March 4 at our meeting with the developers. It is time for the
developers to take part with concern for the welfare of the neighborhood they wish to enter rather than disrupt
it with no regard to the needs of the existing neighborhood. Reducing this project by two units to create a self-
contained development is the only solution that will provide what is needed to result in a harmonious
neighborhood. It is what makes sense. 


Sincerely,

Mary Ann Pikulas, President and Neighborhood Leader
Madison Groves Manor (Maryland Ave & 14th Place)
602-930-3004






Page2 349
Racelle Escolar

From: Mary Crozier
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:54 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6



DearPlanningCommissionMembers:

IfrequentlybikedownMarylandAvenueandamconstantlyfacedwithillegalparkingintheCityofPhoenixpublicbike
lanes,especiallyneartheproposedPUDsubjectsite.Itismyopinionthatmanyofthehigherdensitypropertiesdonot
haveadequateparking.Asaresult,abicyclistmustnavigatethroughspeedingtrafficonMaryland.WhyhaveNo
ParkingZonesifnooneisgoingtoenforcethat?

Theadditionofthisproposedprojectwilladdtotheexistingcongestion.Andtohearthatthedeveloperhasnot
providedforonͲsitegarbagecollectionisludicrous!Sixteengarbagecansinthebikelanestwiceaweek.Thatmeans
whenpeopledonotmovetheircansthebikelaneswillbefilledwithobstaclesfordays.

Lastly,greattime,thoughtandenergywasputintoourGeneralPlan.TheGeneralPlanstatesthemaximumnumberof
unitsatthislocationis14.Whywouldanyoneapprovemoreunitswithoutadequategarbagecollectionandparking?
ThePUDconceptwasdevelopedtocreateasuperiorproduct,nottobeaconvenienttoolforadevelopertomakemore
moneyandprovideaninferiorproject.

Theseissueswilldiminishthepropertyrightsoftheadjacentneighborhoodandforthegeneralpublicwhowanttouse
thebikepathsinasafeandreasonablemanner.

Iamnotopposedtonewdevelopmentatthissite,andwouldfullysupport14units,moreparkingandonͲsitegarbage
collection.Also,IdobelievecreatingaPUDonlessthananacreisnotthespiritandintentionofwhyaPUDwas
created.Someoneisclearlytakingadvantageofthesystemattheexpenseofothers.

Sincerely,

MaryL.Crozier




Page1 350
Racelle Escolar

From: Sarah Entz
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:53 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Cc: Linda Richards
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) - Comments



Thankyouforreadingmycommentsforthisproject.Therearethreelargeissueswiththeproposeddevelopment:

1.Trashcans.Theyareproposingputting30trashcansinthebikelane,orworsethesidewalk,multipletimesaweek.
Thishasbeenrepeatedlypointedtoasanissueandnosolutionhasbeenprovided.Theystatetheyhaverequesteda
variancefromtheCity,howeverthatwillnotbegrantedasthewastemanagementvehicleswillnotbackup,asitisa
safetyhazard.

2.SetbackfromMarylandAve.TheproposedsetbackisdrasticallynarrowerthantherestofMarylandproperties.This
isnotinlinewiththebeautificationofthespace.

3.Parking.Evenwiththeremovalofoneunittoincreasetheparkingtosixspaces,thisstillwillnotmeettheneedsof
theproperty.Thiswillresultinevenmorepeopleparkinginfrontofourneighbor'shomeswhichhasalreadycaused
issueamongstourcommunity.

Iamnotagainstdevelopmentintheneighborhood.Iamagainstanydevelopmentthatputsmultitudesoftrashcansand
carsinthebikelane.Isuggestgoingbacktothearchitecttoredesigntoallowfortheneededeightparkingspacesand
trashonpremises.

Thankyouagainforlistening.

Best,
SarahEntz
1530EMarylandAve,Phoenix,AZ85014
858Ͳ692Ͳ4744






Page1 351
Racelle Escolar

From: Kyle Paskey
Sent: Tuesday, November 2, 2021 4:59 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 (AUTEM Row PUD)



Hello.

I’mwritingtoexpressmyobjectionstothispurposesdevelopment.

Iliveclosetothepurposedsiteandthisdevelopmentfarexceedswhatshouldbeconsidered.

Thedevelopershavebeennotbeenforthcomingorbeensupportiveofneighborsintheirmeetings.

Specificallytherearetoomanyunitspurposedforthesite,nowherenearsufficientguestparking,andnoplanfortrash
removalandrecyclingpickup.

IpurchasedmyhomeonMarylandAvenueasithasdesignatedbikelanes.Thoselanesarealreadyfilledwithparked
carsͲmostlyalreadyinviolationofposted(butrarelyenforced)daytimepostedparkingrestrictions.Addingnew
housingunitswilllikelyonlyaddtotheparkingissuesonMarylandAvenueandcontinuetoimpactthesafetyofthe
neighborhood.

I’mnotopposedtodevelopingthelotsinquestion,buttheissuesaboveshouldbeaddressedbeforeanyvoteto
approveoccurs.

Thankyouforyourconsiderationofmycomments.

KylePaskey
6504N14thPl,Phoenix,AZ85014
602Ͳ903Ͳ8179




Page1 352
Racelle Escolar

From: Janis & Ben Harris
Sent: Thursday, November 4, 2021 8:19 AM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Z-69-20-6 Item #20



DearSir,

Weopposetheproposalfor16unitsat1536Ͳ1538EastMaryland.

Thedeveloperistryingtocrowdtoomanyunitsontothisproperty.Wewouldliketoeliminate2unitstoallowmore
guestparkingandallowspacefortrashpickup.

Pleaseopposethedeveloper’sproposal.

Thankyou,
JanisandBenHarris
516EastStellaLane
PhoenixAZ85012




Page1 353
Sofia Mastikhina

From: Karolyn Benger
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 5:08 PM
To: Sofia Mastikhina
Subject: Development on Maryland Street

Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged


Ms. Mastikhina,

I am writing about my concerns with the new development being planned on Maryland Street.

Having 16 trash bins and 16 recyling bins lined up two days a week on Maryland, will cause problems for
bikers and pedestrians. Cars trying to get out from the trash collection will drive into the oncoming traffic
lane, creating a horrible risk of a head on collision. Further, these bins will be an unsightly blight on our
street.

There are only 4 guest spaces planned, one of which is designated for the disabled. If not requesting a
special classification, 8 spaces would be the required number. With anywhere from 30 to 40 plus
residents possibly living there, each with family or friends visiting and others. Where will they park? If on
Maryland this takes away the bike lane and blocks driver's line of vision when trying to turn into Maryland.
It's simply not safe.

These concerns have been raised for many months and there has yet to be any plan put forward by the
developers to address this.

I am deeply concerned as I, and my children, bike on this bike lane and walk our dog down this street.
This is truly scary when a few modifications could address these concerns.

Thank you,

KarolynBenger
Sentfrommyphone





Page 354
Page 355
February 3rd, 2021

Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: Support for City of Phoenix Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20


I have reviewed the development plans for the property west of the northwest corner of
16th St and Maryland Ave and I eagerly support the rezoning for the townhome
development. As neighbors to the development, our family does not believe that the
proposal will bring any negative impacts to the neighborhood, and feel that the
developer’s plans would be an asset to the community. Our community is known for its
beautiful diversity of architecture and design but we’ve recently been subjected to
historic demolitions in order to build cheap, tasteless gated off track homes that are an
embarrassment and do not serve the community. I’m elated that this proposed
development would be in line with the true design forward spirit of our neighborhood, as
well as provide a more community forward culture instead of further walling everyone off
from each other. For the good of our community, please support this rezoning case.


Miles Willis McDermott
Art Director of Moses Inc.
6530 North Place D’Valencia - Phoenix AZ 85014




Page 356
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ

Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
Benjamin Nesbeitt
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1407 E. Solano Drive, Phoenix AZ 85014
_________________________________
Address
2 November 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 357
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ




Page 358
ZsϭϭͬϮͬϮϬϮϭ

Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
3DXO+RZHOO
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

(DVW6RODQR'ULYH3KRHQL[$=
_________________________________
Address

_________________________________
Date




Page 359
        




November 2nd, 2021



Planning and Development Department 200 W. Washington Street, 2 nd Floor Phoenix,AZ 85003



Re: Support for City of Phoenix Rezoning Case No. Z-69-20



I am a long time resident in our neighborhood and am eager to support this rezoning case to
ultimately re-develop the property at 1536 E. Maryland Ave. As the city and our neighborhood
grow, we are in need of thoughtful communities exactly like this. In addition to adding much
needed single family residences in our neighborhood, this development adds significant character
and architectural integrity to our area. It is clear that this builder is going the extra mile to create
something special here, and I believe this is something fantastic for our community to stand
behind. This level of design and effort is something that our neighborhood should support as an
example of how communities should be developed throughout Phoenix.

Please support this rezoning.




      



N 7th St
 
Phoenix AZ 85014




Page 360
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
________________
Property Owner Signature

R. Alex Therien
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

6544 N. 13th Street, PHX 85014
_________________________________
Address

2 November 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 361
Attachment F




ADDENDUM B
Staff Report: Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021

Camelback East Village Planning October 5, 2021
Committee Meeting Date
Planning Commission Hearing Date November 4, 2021
December 2, 2021
Request From: R-O (0.89 acres)
Request To: PUD (0.89 acres)
Proposed Use Multifamily residential
Location Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest
corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue
Owner East Maryland, LLC
Applicant AUTEM Development
Representative William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco
Staff Recommendation Approval, subject to stipulations

The purpose of this addendum is to revise the staff recommended stipulations to
account for changes to the PUD development narrative, per the applicant’s request.

On October 5, 2021, the Camelback East Village Planning Committee heard this
request and recommended denial, noting the continued community opposition to the
case due to ongoing concerns regarding the proposed density, number of guest parking
spaces, and on-street waste collection. After the meeting, the applicant worked with the
community on modifications to the request to address these concerns and has
requested modifications to the PUD development narrative to accommodate the
changes made to the proposal.

The request was heard by the Planning Commission on November 4, 2021, and was
continued to the December 2, 2021 Planning Commission hearing to allow the applicant
to work with the community on modifications to the development narrative and
conceptual site plan to address the following:

• Modify the development standards and site plan to provide street-facing
residential units along Maryland Avenue;
• Remove the front yard fence along Maryland Avenue to provide an open
entrance to the development;
• Remove the public seating area from the front of the development, and move the
bicycle repair station to the interior of the development.



Page 362
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021


The applicant revised the PUD narrative to incorporate the above modifications. Staff
recommends approval subject to the following revised stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request.
The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development
Narrative date stamped September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021, as modified
by the following stipulations:
a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2,
2021; City Council adopted: [Add adoption date].
B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
C. B. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF
UNITS TO 15.
D. C. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.
E. D. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE
MAXIMUM DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.
F. E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST
PARKING TO 0.40 0.46 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT
MINIMUM OF 6 7 GUEST PARKING SPACES.
G. F. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION
SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE
PROXIMITY TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.
H. G. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH
TO REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE
LAYOUT AS PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED
OCTOBER 28, 2021. IN EXHIBIT 9.
I. H. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD
ZONING COLUMN.
J. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE
SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE
REFERENCE TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

Page 363
Addendum B to the Staff Report Z-69-20-6
December 2, 2021


K. PAGE 38, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THIS EXHIBIT.
I. PAGE 4, EXHIBITS: DELETE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 10.
2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.
4. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the development
with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights, landscaping and
other incidentals, as per plans approved by the Planning and Development
Department. All improvements shall comply with the current ADA Guidelines.
5. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-foot
radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.
6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE
METHODS OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP.


Exhibits
Autem Row PUD development narrative date stamped December 2, 2021




Page 364
Attachment G


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 2, 2021

ITEM NO: 17
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) (Continued from 11/4/2021)
Location: Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and
Maryland Avenue
From: R-O
To: PUD
Acreage: 0.89
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: AUTEM Development
Owner: East Maryland, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco, PA

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report and modifications to
Stipulation Nos. 1.f and 1.j, additional stipulations to modify Exhibits 6 and 8 in the PUD
Narrative to be consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative, and the
standard Proposition 207 waiver of claims stipulation.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 5/4/2021 Information only.
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 8-3 (1 abstained).

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

Motion Discussion: Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve Z-69-20-6, per the
Addendum B Staff Report with the modified and additional stipulations as read into the record,
with the added modification that the developer shall provide onsite trash and recycling pickup,
modify the stoops and stairs in the two southern units to face Maryland, and to stay in general
conformance within the site plan, so the seven parking spots will remain.

Ms. Racelle Escolar (staff) stated that the modification to add the stoop and stairways facing
Maryland is not necessary because there is a provision in the revised narrative that requires the
southernmost end units will incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing so as to be
orientated towards Maryland Avenue. There is also a requirement in the revised narrative that
they adhere to the design intent, depicted in Exhibit 8. Exhibit 8 is one that needs to be replaced
in the narrative to be consistent with the rendering shown on the cover.

Commissioner Johnson stated that the stairs and stoops face each. They face the opposite
units instead of Maryland. That is what he was trying to change.

Ms. Escolar confirmed that Commissioner Johnson wanted the stairways to also face Maryland.

Commissioner Johnson asked if he had to address the parking spot.


Page 365
Ms. Escolar stated that it was already addressed in the Addendum because there is a
stipulation that requires seven spaces. She stated that they could modify Stipulation No. 6. to
change the onsite collection, as he stated earlier, that the developer shall provide onsite trash
and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and Development Department. In order to
incorporate the stoop and stairs facing Maryland, they would add a stipulation to update page
12 of the narrative, to modify the stoop and stairways to face Maryland Avenue. They could add
a stipulation to change that provision on page 12.

Ms. Escolar asked for confirmation if the motion is to approve, per the Addendum B Staff Report
with the modified and additional stipulations that were read into the record; and a stipulation to
modify page 12 of the narrative, the provision that requires the southernmost units to
incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland, and also the
stoops and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland; and a change to Stipulation No. 6 to require
onsite trash and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Commission Johnson confirmed that the motion was correct.

Commission Gorraiz seconded the motion.

Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-69-20-6, per the
Addendum B Staff Report with the modified and additional stipulations that were read into the
record; and a stipulation to modify page 12 of the narrative, the provision that requires the
southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors and glazing to be oriented towards
Maryland, and also the stoops and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland; and a change to
Stipulation No. 6 to require onsite trash and recycling pickup, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 8-1 (Perez)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed PUD will provide a high quality multifamily residential development which
will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

2. The site is appropriately situated in close proximity to the State Route 51 freeway to the
east and major commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.

3. The PUD will provide significant streetscape improvements along Maryland Avenue,
including robust tree shade coverage, public pedestrian seating, and bicycle amenities.




Page 366
Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021;

B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

C. B. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO
15.

D. C. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

E. D. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.

F. E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST PARKING
TO 0.40 0.46 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT MINIMUM OF 6
7 GUEST PARKING SPACES.

G. F. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION SHALL
BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.

H. G. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH TO
REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE LAYOUT AS
PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021. IN
EXHIBIT 9.

I. H. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD ZONING
COLUMN.

J. I. PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE SITE
PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

K. PAGE 12, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THIS EXHIBIT.

I.J. PAGE 4, EXHIBITS: DELETE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 10.



Page 367
K. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.: MODIFY THE PROVISION
THAT REQUIRES THE SOUTHERNMOST UNITS TO INCORPORATE
STREET-FACING FRONT DOORS AND GLAZING TO BE ORIENTED
TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE, AND ALSO THE STOOPS AND STAIRS
TO BE ORIENTED TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE.

L. PAGE 28: REVISE EXHIBIT 6 (STREETSIDE SCALE CONTEXT EXHIBIT) TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

M. PAGES 33-34: REVISE EXHIBIT 8 (CONCEPTUAL RENDERING) TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of Maryland
Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a meeting to discuss
the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with instruction to
forward the study to the Street Transportation Department, Development Coordination
Section.

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

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

6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE METHODS
OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR PROVIDE ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP, AS APPROVED BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENTS.

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

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 495-5622, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 368
Attachment H - Revised




Page 369
1/5/2022




Page 370
Attachment I



Chairwoman Shank
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003


Re: Support for Rezoning Request - Application No.: Z-43-21
4048 N. 40th Pl., Phoenix, Arizona 85018


Chairwoman Shank and Planning Commissioners:

My name is Geoff Edlund and I own the three properties located at 3943, 3937 and 3933 E
Monterosa St under the name Chapter 2, LLC.. I support the rezoning request to allow the property located
at 4048 N. 40th Pl., Phoenix, Arizona 85018 to be rezoned from Rl-6 to R-O. The Applicant has explained
their rezoning request in great detail and it is my understanding that their rezoning request is necessary in
order to allow their already existing building to expand. In my opinion, approval of their rezoning request
will not negatively impact the surrounding area but will instead allow a welcomed business to expand their
footprint. I have seen much of Studio Ma's design work and I have no doubt their expansion will be
tastefully done and add value to the neighborhood.

In short, I fully support the Applicant's rezoning request because the request will neither harm nor
negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit this letter to express my support.



Sincerely,




Property Owner Signature

DfZo,-F EoLuNO
Property Owner Name (print)

j I / 1 / 2-c 'Z-J
Date




Page 371
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
Justin Novak
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)
6114 n. 8th street
_________________________________
Address

11/02/2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 372
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature
John Dimmel
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1019 E. Georgia Ave
_________________________________
Address
November 2, 2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 373
Chairwoman Shank
Planning and Development Department
200 W. Washington Street, 2nd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003


Re: Support for Zoning Request – Z-69-20
1536 E. Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014


Dear Chairwoman Shank:

Please allow this letter to serve as my letter of support for the zoning request identified as
Z-69-20. It is my understanding that the zoning request will rezone the property located at 1536 E.
Maryland Ave., Phoenix, Arizona 85014 into a PUD in order to allow a multifamily project to
develop. I support the proposed multifamily development because I believe the proposal will
benefit our neighborhood by repurposing an underused lot. Our neighborhood is well positioned
to usher in thoughtful development because we are located in the heart of Phoenix; this proposal
is thoughtful and will undoubtedly enhance the Maryland Ave. corridor.

In short, I fully support the Applicant’s zoning request because I believe the proposed
development will neither harm nor negatively impact the surrounding area. Accordingly, I submit
this letter to express my support.


Sincerely,


_________________________________
Property Owner Signature

Galina Mihaleva
_________________________________
Property Owner Name (print)

1435 E. Solano Drive, Phoenix, AZ, B5014
_________________________________
Address

11.04.2021
_________________________________
Date




Page 374
Page 375
ORDINANCE G-6943

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-69-20-6) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.89 acre site located approximately 300 feet

west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue in a portion of Section

9, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District) to

“PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,

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

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:




Page 376
1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped December 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: Hearing draft submittal: December 2, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 7: Update the reference to proposed number of units to 15.

c. Page 8, Land Use Plan: Update the reference to proposed number of units
to 15.

d. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update the maximum density to
15 dwellings units and 16.85 du/ac.

e. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update guest parking to 0.46
spaces per residential unit to reflect minimum of 7 guest parking spaces.

f. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.h.: Replace with the following:

Bicycle parking will be installed where indicated on the attached site plan
(Exhibit 9). A bicycle repair station shall be provided on the north end of
the site in close proximity to the bicycle storage area shown on Exhibit 9.

g. Page 14, Section H.2. Circulation: Update the paragraph to reduce
number of units to 15 and to describe the layout as proposed in the site
plan in Exhibit 9.

h. Page 15, Comparative Zoning Table: Update the number of units, density
ratio, and minimum guest parking on PUD zoning column.

i. Page 36, Exhibit 9 (Conceptual Site Plan): Remove the reference to the
bicycle repair station.

j. Page 4, Exhibits: Delete reference to Exhibit 10.

k. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.: Modify the provision that
requires the southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors
and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue, and also the stoops
and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue.




-2- Ordinance G-6943

Page 377
l. Page 28: Revise Exhibit 6 (Streetside Scale Context Exhibit) to be
consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

m. Pages 33-34: Revise Exhibit 8 (Conceptual Rendering) to be consistent
with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.

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

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

6. The developer shall provide on-site trash and recycling pick up, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.




-3- Ordinance G-6943

Page 378
PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 26th day of January,

2022.



________________________________
MAYOR

ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Cris Meyer, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager


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



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




-4- Ordinance G-6943

Page 379
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-69-20-6


THAT PART OF FARM UNIT F (OR THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER), SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 9, WHICH POINT IS 336.78 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE NORTH 355.33 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST 162.78 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 355.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING:

EXCEPT THE NORTH 120.00 FEET.

AND ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33.00 FEET.

THIS DESCRIPTION ENCOMPASSES THE PROPERTIES RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 2013-0016773 AND 2012-0878219 OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 161-08-050C




-5- Ordinance G-6943

Page 380
Page 381




-6- Ordinance G-6943
Attachment J



REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
February 3, 2022

ITEM NO: 13
DISTRICT NO.: 6
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-69-20-6 (Autem Row PUD) (Remanded back from City Council 1/26/22)
Location: Approximately 300 feet west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and
Maryland Avenue
From: R-O
To: PUD
Acreage: 0.89
Proposal: Planned Unit Development to allow multifamily residential.
Applicant: AUTEM Development
Owner: East Maryland, LLC
Representative: William E. Lally, Esq., Tiffany & Bosco, PA

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Camelback East 5/4/2021 Informational only.
Camelback East 10/5/2021 Denial. Vote: 8-3.

Planning Commission Recommendation:
12/2/2021 Approval, per the Addendum B Staff Report, with modified and additional stipulations.
2/3/2022 Approval, per the staff memo dated February 3, 2022, with modified stipulation.

Motion Discussion: There was discussion about modifying the stipulations to reduce the number of
units to 14, as well as a stipulation to require seven guest parking spaces, rather than six.

Motion details: Commissioner Johnson made a MOTION to approve Z-69-20-6, per the staff memo
dated February 3, 2022, with a modification to require seven guest parking spaces.

Maker: Johnson
Second: Gorraiz
Vote: 8-0
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposed PUD will provide a high quality multifamily residential development which
will help alleviate the housing shortage in Phoenix.

2. The site is appropriately situated in close proximity to the State Route 51 freeway to the
east and major commercial centers on Bethany Home Road to the south.




Page 382
3. The PUD will provide significant streetscape improvements along Maryland Avenue,
including robust tree shade coverage, public pedestrian seating, and bicycle amenities.

Stipulations:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the changes
approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and Development
Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this request. The updated
Development Narrative shall be consistent with the Development Narrative date stamped
September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021, as modified by the following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add the
following: Hearing draft submittal: September 21, 2021 DECEMBER 2, 2021; City
Council adopted: [Add adoption date].

B. PAGE 5, OVERALL DESIGN CONCEPT: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO
PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

C. B. PAGE 7: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED NUMBER OF UNITS TO
15.

D. C. PAGE 8, LAND USE PLAN: UPDATE THE REFERENCE TO PROPOSED
NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15.

E. D. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE THE MAXIMUM
DENSITY TO 15 DWELLINGS UNITS AND 16.85 DU/AC.

F. E. PAGE 9, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE: UPDATE GUEST PARKING
TO 0.40 0.46 0.40 0.46 SPACES PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT TO REFLECT
MINIMUM OF 6 7 6 7 GUEST PARKING SPACES.

F. PAGE 9, BICYCLE PARKING: REPLACE WITH THE FOLLOWING:

8 BICYLE PARKING SPACES; 0.25 BICYCLE PARKING SPACES PER
DWELLING UNIT.

BICYCLE PARKING MAY BE PLACED IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND MAY
BE ALLOWED IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SUBJECT TO A REVOCABLE PERMIT
FROM THE STREET TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT.

BICYCLE PARKING WILL COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS AND WILL
NOT IMPEDE ON-SITE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS. A CLEARANCE OF AT LEAST
FOUR FEET IN WIDTH WILL BE PROVIDED FOR PEDESTRIAN ACCESS.

BICYCLE RACKS AND/OR STORAGE AREAS WILL BE LOCATED WIHIN 50
FEET FROM BUILDING ENTRY POINTS.




Page 383
BICYCLE RACKS WILL BE AT LEAST 30 INCHES FROM A WALL OR OTHER
OBSTRUCTION. THE MINIMUM LENGTH FOR BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE
72 INCHES.

BICYCLE RACKS AND/OR STORAGE AREAS WILL BE LOCATED NEAR
HIGH TRAFFIC AREAS AND VISIBLE TO THE PUBLIC BUT SHOULD NOT
IMPEDE THE FUNCTION OF THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY.

G. PAGE 10, LANDSCAPE STANDARDS TABLE STREETSCAPE - ADJACENT
TO MARYLAND: ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE BELOW THE CURRENT
STANDARDS:

AN ON-SITE SOLID WASTE AND RECYLING ENCLOSURE MAY BE
LOCATED IN THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYLING ENCLOSURE SHALL BE FULLY
SCREENED WITH A GREEN SCREEN CONSISTING OF VINES OR OTHER
VEGETATIVE COVER. AT A MINIMUM THE ENCLOSURE SHALL BE
LANDSCAPED ALONG ITS PERIMETER WALLS WITH 5-GALLON SHRUBS
PLACED FOUR FEET ON CENTER OR IN EQUIVALENT GROUPINGS.

THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ENCLOSURE SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 14 FEET
BY 8 FEET WITH A MINIMUM 6-FOOT-TALL DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL.
THE ENCLOSURE AND SCREEN WALL SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN THE
LANDSCAPE SETBACK.

THE ENCLOSURE WALLS WILL BE CONSTRUCTED USING 4-INCH BY 4-
INCH BY 16-INCH CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS AND WILL BE FITTED WITH
TWO 5-FOOT FATE LEAFS WITH 180 DEGREE HINGES WITH ONE 4-FOOT
PEDESTRIAN GATE LEAF WITH 180 DEGREE HINGES, UNLESS
OTHERWISE AGREED TO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT, THE PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT, AND AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

G. F. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
H. FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED WHERE INDICATED ON THE
ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9). A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION SHALL BE
PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END OF THE SITE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO
THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.

PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.H.: REPLACE WITH THE
FOLLOWING:

BICYCLE PARKING WILL BE INSTALLED IN AN ACCESSIBLE LOCATION ON
THE SITE. WHERE INDICATED ON THE ATTACHED SITE PLAN (EXHIBIT 9).
A BICYCLE REPAIR STATION SHALL BE PROVIDED ON THE NORTH END
OF THE SITE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE BICYCLE STORAGE AREA
SHOWN ON EXHIBIT 9.




Page 384
H. G. I. PAGE 14, SECTION H.2. CIRCULATION: UPDATE THE PARAGRAPH TO
REDUCE NUMBER OF UNITS TO 15 AND TO DESCRIBE THE LAYOUT AS
PROPOSED IN THE SITE PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021. IN
EXHIBIT 9.

I. H. J. PAGE 15, COMPARATIVE ZONING TABLE: UPDATE THE NUMBER OF
UNITS, DENSITY RATIO, AND MINIMUM GUEST PARKING ON PUD ZONING
COLUMN.

J. I. K PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE SITE
PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION.

PAGE 36, EXHIBIT 9 (CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN): REPLACE WITH THE SITE
PLAN DATE STAMPED OCTOBER 28, 2021 AND REMOVE THE REFERENCE
TO THE BICYCLE REPAIR STATION AND REPLACE WITH THE SITE PLAN
DATE STAMPED JANUARY 18, 2022.

K. PAGE 38, EXHIBIT 10 (FENCE DIAGRAM): REMOVE THIS EXHIBIT.

I. J. L. PAGE 4, EXHIBITS: DELETE REFERENCE TO EXHIBIT 10.

K. M. PAGE 12, DESIGN GUIDELINES SECTION E.1.: MODIFY THE PROVISION
THAT REQUIRES THE SOUTHERNMOST UNITS TO INCORPORATE
STREET-FACING FRONT DOORS AND GLAZING TO BE ORIENTED
TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE, AND ALSO THE STOOPS AND STAIRS TO
BE ORIENTED TOWARDS MARYLAND AVENUE.

L. N. PAGE 28: REVISE EXHIBIT 6 (STREETSIDE SCALE CONTEXT EXHIBIT) TO
BE CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

M. O. PAGES 33-34: REVISE EXHIBIT 8 (CONCEPTUAL RENDERING) TO BE
CONSISTENT WITH THE REVISED RENDERING ON THE COVER OF THE
PUD NARRATIVE.

P. PAGE 11: FENCES / WALLS. ADD THE FOLLOWING LANGUAGE: A
PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION FENCE MUST BE LOCATED TOWARDS THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW PEDESTRIANS TO
ACCESS THE COMMERCIAL PARKING LOT NORTHEAST OF THE
PROPERTY.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of Maryland
Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development Department.




Page 385
3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and approved
by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a meeting to discuss
the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the developer shall submit the
completed TIS to the Planning and Development Department counter with instruction to
forward the study to the Street Transportation Department, Development Coordination
Section.

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

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

6. THE DEVELOPER SHALL WORK WITH THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT’S SOLID WASTE REVIEWER TO PURSUE ALTERNATIVE METHODS
OF WASTE COLLECTION TO ALLOW FOR PROVIDE ON-SITE TRASH AND
RECYCLING PICK UP, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

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

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 386
ORDINANCE G-6943

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-69-20-6) FROM R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE –
RESTRICTED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 0.89 acre site located approximately 300 feet

west of the northwest corner of 16th Street and Maryland Avenue in a portion of Section

9, Township 2 North, Range 3 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is

hereby changed from “R-O” (Residential Office – Restricted Commercial District) to

“PUD” (Planned Unit Development).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 387
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Autem Row PUD reflecting the
changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the Planning and
Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval of this
request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped December 2, 2021, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: Hearing draft submittal: December 2, 2021; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date].

b. Page 7: Update the reference to proposed number of units to 15.

c. Page 8, Land Use Plan: Update the reference to proposed number of units
to 15.

d. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update the maximum density to
15 dwellings units and 16.85 du/ac.

e. Page 9, Development Standards Table: Update guest parking to 0.46
spaces per residential unit to reflect minimum of 7 guest parking spaces.

f. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.h.: Replace with the following:

Bicycle parking will be installed where indicated on the attached site plan
(Exhibit 9). A bicycle repair station shall be provided on the north end of
the site in close proximity to the bicycle storage area shown on Exhibit 9.

g. Page 14, Section H.2. Circulation: Update the paragraph to reduce
number of units to 15 and to describe the layout as proposed in the site
plan in Exhibit 9.

h. Page 15, Comparative Zoning Table: Update the number of units, density
ratio, and minimum guest parking on PUD zoning column.

i. Page 36, Exhibit 9 (Conceptual Site Plan): Remove the reference to the
bicycle repair station.

j. Page 4, Exhibits: Delete reference to Exhibit 10.




-2- Ordinance G-6943
Page 388
k. Page 12, Design Guidelines Section E.1.: Modify the provision that
requires the southernmost units to incorporate street-facing front doors
and glazing to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue, and also the stoops
and stairs to be oriented towards Maryland Avenue.

l. Page 28: Revise Exhibit 6 (Streetside Scale Context Exhibit) to be
consistent with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

m. Pages 33-34: Revise Exhibit 8 (Conceptual Rendering) to be consistent
with the revised rendering on the cover of the PUD Narrative.

2. The developer shall dedicate a 7-foot sidewalk easement for the north side of
Maryland Avenue, as approved by Planning and Development.

3. The applicant shall submit a traffic statement to the City for this development. No
preliminary approval of plans shall be granted until the study is reviewed and
approved by the City. Contact the Street Transportation Department to set up a
meeting to discuss the requirements of the study. Upon completion of the TIS the
developer shall submit the completed TIS to the Planning and Development
Department counter with instruction to forward the study to the Street
Transportation Department, Development Coordination Section.

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

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

6. The developer shall provide on-site trash and recycling pick up, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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


SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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




-3- Ordinance G-6943
Page 389
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 16th 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)




PL:tml:LF21-3621:2-16-2022:2300847v1




-4- Ordinance G-6943
Page 390
EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR Z-69-20-6


THAT PART OF FARM UNIT F (OR THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE
NORTHEAST QUARTER), SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 3 EAST, OF
THE GILA AND SALT RIVER MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, AS
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER
OF SAID SECTION 9, WHICH POINT IS 336.78 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION;

THENCE NORTH 355.33 FEET TO A POINT;

THENCE WEST 162.78 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 355.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING:

EXCEPT THE NORTH 120.00 FEET.

AND ALSO EXCEPT THE SOUTH 33.00 FEET.

THIS DESCRIPTION ENCOMPASSES THE PROPERTIES RECORDED IN
DOCUMENT NUMBERS 2013-0016773 AND 2012-0878219 OF MARICOPA COUNTY
RECORDS.

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 161-08-050C




-5- Ordinance G-6943
Page 391
Page 392




-6- Ordinance G-6943



Report

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

Item text
***REQUEST TO ADD-ON (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Police Department
Unmanned Aircraft System (Drones) (Ordinance S-48363)

On Feb. 14, 2022, Councilwoman Ann O’Brien, Mayor Kate Gallego and Council
members Debra Stark and Jim Waring submitted a memo to City Manager Jeff Barton
requesting an Add-On item for the Feb. 16 Formal for the “purchase of drones for the
Phoenix Police Department” (Attachment A). According to the Rules of Council
Proceedings, Rule 2(c), the City Manager will place this item on the Feb. 16, 2022
Formal agenda (Attachment B).

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow the Police
Department to create and deploy a small Unmanned Aerial System (sUAS)/Unmanned
Aircraft System (UAS) "drone" program, including the purchase of drones from an
approved vendor, using a cooperative agreement as necessary. This equipment, which
is critical for the safety of department personnel, will be used during high-risk tactical
incidents to conduct highly detailed and complex investigations and support major
planned/unplanned events. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse
all funds related to this item. The cost for this purchase shall not exceed $516,400.

Summary
The City of Phoenix presented a phased UAS ("drone") program to the Public Safety
and Justice subcommittee in January 2022 where the first phase of the program was
approved, authorizing the Fire Department to implement a drone program. The Police
Department was included in phase three of the program at that time, which was not yet
approved. This action would effectively include the Police Department in phase one,
authorizing the Police Department to implement a drone program.

Over 1,500 public safety agencies across the country utilize sUAS technology and
1,103 of those agencies are law enforcement. At least 36 agencies in Arizona have
implemented sUAS technology in support of their respective public safety missions.

The Phoenix Police Department has identified several specific work units within the
department where the use of sUAS technology will have the greatest impact and
opportunity for success. These work units have been identified below.



Page 393

The Tactical Support Unit will utilize this technology during high-risk tactical incidents,
where on-scene intelligence is crucial to the safety of department personnel. The
ability to deploy sUAS to gather aerial intelligence or determine a suspect’s location
significantly reduces risk and exposure of a tactical operator having to be placed in
harm’s way to collect similar intelligence.

Application of this technology also improves suspect safety as it provides visual
capabilities allowing tactical operators to communicate with the suspect prior to
contact, minimizing direct confrontation during high-risk, high-stress encounters. Direct
communication can be used to provide specific instructions to the suspect and to
facilitate de-escalation efforts and hazard avoidance.

The Violent Crimes Bureau (Homicide Unit), Vehicular Crimes Unit, and the Laboratory
Services Bureau will utilize this technology to enable investigators to conduct high
definition photography, videography, and crime scene mapping; increasing efficiency
and accuracy in evidence collection and crime scene management. Application of
sUAS technology will enable investigators to conduct crime scene mapping in most
cases in about 8-10 minutes, with larger more complex scenes taking approximately
25 minutes based on individual crime scene dynamics. This represents a time savings
of approximately 40-60 percent as compared to the current conventional methodology.

The Homeland Defense Bureau will deploy this technology as a real-time aerial
platform in support of major planned/unplanned events or significant incidents. The
use of sUAS will provide department leadership information to make more effective
operational decisions involving the deployment of department resources and
personnel.

The impact of not funding, equates to an increased risk for tactical operators while the
lack of real-time intelligence can adversely impact operational decision-making in the
field; diminishes the command and controlled decision-making for the deployment of
resources and personnel during high-profile events; and the ability for the department’s
Homicide Unit, Vehicular Crimes Unit, and the Laboratory Services Bureau to utilize
this technology to provide a wide variety of investigative support tools that adversely
impact their ability to conduct aerial photography, videography, crime scene mapping,
and reconstruction as a substantial component to crime scene management.

The utilization of sUAS technology by law enforcement for investigative support has
become the “gold standard” and is nationally recognized as the institutionalized best
practice for conducting these highly detailed and complex investigations. The use of
sUAS technology is a significant time saver for detectives on scene and reduces the
amount of time spent on scene and impacts the public by shortening road closure


Page 394

times due to on-scene investigations.

Timeline
Currently the Department has a training lesson plan drafted, and expects to provide
pilot training during procurement of the necessary equipment. Prior to use and
deployment of the sUAS, standard operating procedures must be drafted and
approved, and the department must obtain all relevant and appropriate approvals, in
addition to obtaining the required waivers and licensing. It is estimated that the
program can be enacted within 3-6 months. The Police Department also has a draft
policy, which is currently being reviewed by the legal team, including a contracted
privacy law attorney and the Department will provide updates to the City Council or its
subcommittee as requested.

Financial Impact
Funding for this program will be built into the FY2021-22 and FY2022-23 general fund
budget.

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




Page 395
Attachment A




OFFICE OF COUNCILWOMAN ANN O’BRIEN
February 14, 2022

Jeff Barton
City Manager
200 W. Washington Street, 12th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85003

Re: February 16 Formal Council Add-On Item –Purchase of Drones for the Phoenix Police Department
City Manager Barton,

In the early morning hours of February 11, our officers were ambushed when responding to a call for service at a two-
story home in Southwest Phoenix near 54th Avenue and Broadway. Nine of our police officers were injured but
thankfully all of them are recovering.

During this incident, it was determined for the safety of our officers a drone would need to be utilized to neutralize the
situation. Currently, Phoenix does not own any drones for use by our Police Department, therefore we had to rely on the
grace of our neighbor, the City of Glendale, to provide our department with a drone.

Just last month, the City of Phoenix Public Safety Subcommittee approved the first phase of our drone program, which
includes the Fire Department. The Police Department is currently in the third phase of this program and wouldn’t be
slated to receive drones for another twelve months.

We believe the use of drones for the Police Department needs to be escalated – as the fifth largest city in the country,
we need to provide our department with the most up to date technology.

We are requesting the Police Department be approved to purchase drones as soon as possible. We request this item be
added to the Wednesday, February 16, 2022 Formal Council Agenda for discussion and vote.




___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________
Councilwoman Ann O’Brien Mayor Kate Gallego Councilwoman Deb Stark
Councilwoman, District 1 Mayor, City of Phoenix Councilwoman, District 3




___________________________
Councilman Jim Waring
Councilman, District 2

Office of Councilwoman Ann O’Brien
200 West Washington Street, 11th Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611
Council.district.1@phoenix.gov

Page 396
Attachment B




Page 397

Supporting documents

No supporting documents stored.


View on Agenda Online ↗

71 item(s)