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

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




Page 9
ATTACHMENT A




To: City Council Date: January 4, 2023
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:

Ahwatukee Foothills Village Planning Committee

Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following for appointment:

Sean Lieb
Mr. Lieb is the Senior Vice President of Levrose Commercial Real Estate and a resident
of District 6. He replaces Martha Neese for a term to expire November 19, 2023.

Alhambra Village Planning Committee

Councilwoman Debra Stark recommends the following for appointment:

Melissa Camp
Ms. Camp is a Realtor at HomeSmart and a resident of District 3. She fills a vacancy for
a term to expire November 19, 2024.

Audit Committee

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Ann O’Brien
Councilwoman O’Brien is serving her second term to expire July 1, 2024.

Debra Stark
Councilwoman Stark is serving her second term to expire July 1, 2023.




Page 10
Jim Waring
Councilman Waring is serving his fifth term to expire December 14, 2024.

Camelback East Village Planning Committee

Councilman Sal DiCiccio recommends the following for appointment:

Kathryn Langmade
Ms. Langmade is the owner of Maloney Plumbing, LLC and a resident of District 6. She
fills a vacancy for a partial term to expire November 19, 2023.

Plan Phoenix 2025 Leadership Committee
The City of Phoenix is preparing to embark on the 2025 update of the Phoenix General
Plan. The goal is to execute a strategic and focused update of the existing General Plan
that will align the General Plan’s vision, goals and implementation strategies with other
the entire city, while updating the plan to address the opportunities and challenges we
face in the next decade.

The 2015 PlanPHX Leadership Committee did phenomenal work in collaborating and
guiding staff in the development of a General Plan that was ultimately approved by
more than 76 percent of voters in the 2015 election. To ensure we have the same level
of community insight as we look to build on the successes of the existing General Plan,
this item proposes to establish the PlanPHX 2025 Leadership Committee. The
Committee will be charged with collaborating with the Mayor, City Council, Planning
Commission, Village Planning Committees, and other community stakeholders
throughout the process. Specifically, the Committee will focus on three endeavors:

- Analysis: Provide the project team feedback on the existing General Plan and
identify areas in need of update.
- Outreach: Identify and connect community stakeholders to provide their insight
on the update.
- Support: Assist the Mayor, City Council and staff in the circulation and
presentation of the updated General Plan in preparation for the election in
November 2024.

I recommend the following to be appointed to the Plan Phoenix 2025 Leadership
Committee with terms set to expire January 30, 2025:

Mo Stein
Mr. Stein is a Principal with HKS Architects, and a former chair of the Phoenix Planning
Commission, 2002 General Plan Update, and 2015 General Plan Update. Mr. Stein will
serve as Chair. He represents Architecture and served on the 2015 PlanPHX
Leadership Committee.




Page 11
Hannah Bleam
Ms. Bleam is a planner with Withey Morris and a former City of Phoenix employee. She
represents Planning.

Pearl Chang Esau
Ms. Esau is founder and CEO of Shan Strategies. She represents Business and
Education.

Carolyn Chatman
Ms. Chatman serves on the City of Phoenix Transportation 2050 (T2050) Citizens
Transportation Commission and was a former director for City of Phoenix Public Works
Department. She represents Transportation.

Jen Corey
Ms. Corey is Senior Real Estate Development Manager with Carvana. She represents
Real Estate and Planning.

Gabriel Jaramillo
Mr. Jaramillo serves on the Phoenix Planning Commission and the North Mountain
Village Planning Committee. He represents the Planning Commission and Affordable
Housing.

Cheryl Lombard
Ms. Lombard is president and CEO of Valley Partnership. She represents Real Estate
and Water Conservation.

Andrea Odegard-Begay
Ms. Odegard-Begay serves on the City of Phoenix Environmental Quality and
Sustainability Commission. She represents Water Conservation.

Jeff O’Toole
Mr. O’Toole serves on the Maryvale Village Planning Committee. He represents
Neighborhoods.

Barry Paceley
Mr. Paceley is President of Paceley Constructors, Inc., and serves on the Camelback
East Village Planning Committee. He served on the 2015 PlanPHX Leadership
Committee.

Phil Pangrazio
Mr. Pangrazio serves on the City of Phoenix Transportation 2050 (T2050) Citizens
Transportation Commission and was former President and CEO of Ability 360. He
represents Transportation, Mobility, and ADA.




Page 12
Julie Read
Ms. Read serves on the North Gateway Village Planning Committee. She represents
Neighborhoods.

Bobby Ruiz
Mr. Ruiz is a retired firefighter and longtime Phoenix resident. He represents
Neighborhoods.

Krista Shepherd
Ms. Shepherd is an Architect with Multistudio and serves as Co-Chair on the Phoenix
Community Alliance Multi-Modal Connectivity Committee. She represents Architecture,
Transportation, and Mobility.

Christian Solorio
Mr. Solorio is an Architect with Architectural Resource Team and serves on the
Alhambra Village Planning Committee. He represents Architecture and Affordable
Housing.

Jay Swart
Mr. Swart serves on the Camelback East Village Planning Committee. He represents
Neighborhoods.

Water/Wastewater Rate Advisory Committee

I recommend the following for appointment:

Margaret Garcia
Ms. Garcia is an Assistant Professor at Arizona State University. She replaces Guy
Carpenter for a term to expire January 4, 2026.

Joe Murphy
Mr. Murphy is the Political Director at Arizona AFL-CIO. He replaces Wes Harris for a
term to expire January 4, 2026.

I recommend the following for reappointment:

Henrietta Andersson
Ms. Andersson is serving her second term to expire March 18, 2025.

Damon Williams
Mr. Williams is serving his second term to expire April 18, 2024.




Page 13



Report

Swearing In of a Municipal Court Judge

Request to permit the swearing in of a Municipal Court Judge.

Summary
Administer the oath of office for the Honorable Cynthia Certa to a four-year term as
Judge of the Phoenix Municipal Court to end on Jan. 19, 2027.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
On Dec. 2, 2022, the Judicial Selection Advisory Board recommended approval to the
Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee.

On Dec. 14, 2022, the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee recommended
approval to the City Council by a vote of 4-0.

On Dec. 14, 2022, the City Council approved the reappointment of Judge Cynthia
Certa by a vote of 8-0.

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




Page 14



Report

Liquor License - Barrio Brewing Company Restaurant

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 215789.

Summary

Applicant
Navayogasingam Thuraisingam, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
702 W. Deer Valley Road
Zoning Classification: A-1 DVAO
Council District: 1

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 6, 2023.

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 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:
“I have held multiple liquor licenses and never had any violations. I plan to serve liquor
always following all rules and regulations set forth by the city and the state. Further, I
will ensure these same rules and regulations are followed by management and
employees, who will also receive the necessary and required training to serve liquor.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This will be part of the Deer Valley Airport and provide a great service to both the
airport as an organization, as well as all the passengers that travel to and from
Phoenix via the Deer Valley Airport. This will be an excellent addition to the community,
providing a safe and enjoyable environment to enjoy food and beverage for all
patrons.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Barrio Brewing Company Restaurant
Liquor License Map - Barrio Brewing Company Restaurant

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




Page 16
Liquor License Data: BARRIO BREWING COMPANY
RESTAURANT
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Microbrewery 3 1 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 2 2

Restaurant 12 1 1

Craft Distiller 18 1 0



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 55.88 16.71 15.07

Violent Crimes 10.65 1.40 0.42

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 2

Total Violations 89 4



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6147001 287 86 % 29 % 31 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 17
Liquor License Map: BARRIO BREWING COMPANY RESTAURANT
702 W DEER VALLEY RD




Ü
Date: 11/10/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 18



Report

Liquor License - Fat Tuesday

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070585.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
21001 N. Tatum Blvd., Ste. 44-1395
Zoning Classification: C-2 DRSP
Council District: 2

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a bar. This
location was not previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim
permit. This business is currently being remodeled with plans to open in February
2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 20, 2023.

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




Page 19

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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“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:
“Fat Tuesday has several locations throughout the United States, and is opening its
3rd location in Arizona. Applicant would like to offer guests 21 and over the opportunity
to enjoy alcoholic beverages."

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

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Fat Tuesday
Liquor License Map - Fat Tuesday

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




Page 20
Liquor License Data: FAT TUESDAY
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 11 8

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 3

Liquor Store 9 3 3

Beer and Wine Store 10 5 4

Hotel 11 1 0

Restaurant 12 34 29


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 55.88 43.63 113.48

Violent Crimes 10.65 2.68 6.90

*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 51 7

Total Violations 90 7




Page 21
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

6150003 344 8% 38 % 5%

6151001 1444 84 % 18 % 8%

6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %

6152002 2127 70 % 10 % 4%

6152003 867 89 % 26 % 2%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 22
Liquor License Map: FAT TUESDAY
21001 N TATUM BLVD




Ü
Date: 11/29/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 23



Report

Liquor License - Jacksons #805

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 09070353.

Summary

Applicant
Amy Nations, Agent

License Type
Series 9 - Liquor Store

Location
16610 N. Scottsdale Road
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 2

This request is for an ownership and location transfer of a liquor license for a
convenience store that sells gas. This location is currently licensed for liquor sales with
a Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store liquor license.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 6, 2023.

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

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


Page 24

applicant in the State of Arizona.

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“Jacksons has been in business since 1975 and currently holds 230+ branded stores
in 6 western states. All of the Jacksons locations have liquor licenses. Jacksons is
knowledgeable in operating liquor stores and will train their employees in Arizona
liquor laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“Jacksons stores are a one stop shop with everything needed. This is a very busy
location where neighbors can come get their cars washed as well as buying common
things they may need. Jacksons is also very involved in the local communities they are
located in. From Boys and Girls clubs to schools and support of local sports.”

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 - Jacksons #805
Liquor License Map - Jacksons #805

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




Page 25
Liquor License Data: JACKSONS #805
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 4 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 7 4

Liquor Store 9 1 1

Beer and Wine Store 10 8 3

Hotel 11 2 1

Restaurant 12 56 20


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 55.88 17.22 25.05

Violent Crimes 10.65 1.40 2.54

*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 51 13

Total Violations 89 19




Page 26
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1032191 834 44 % 30 % 13 %

1032193 1262 88 % 14 % 8%

2168161 1812 95 % 0% 4%

2168452 694 23 % 38 % 8%

6152001 1993 8% 29 % 12 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 27
Liquor License Map: JACKSONS #805
16610 N SCOTTSDALE RD




Ü
Date: 11/10/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 28



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Free Serbian Orthodox Church St. Nicholas

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

Summary

Applicant
Milan Djordic

Location
11640 N. 16th Place
Council District: 3

Function
Cultural Celebration

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 13, 2023 - 7 p.m. to 1 a.m. / 300 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 29



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - Phoenix Chinese Week

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

Summary

Applicant
Eva Li

Location
300 E. Indian School Road
Council District: 4

Function
Chinese Cultural Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 21, 2023 - 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. / 5,000 attendees
Jan. 22, 2023 - 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. / 5,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 30



Report

Liquor License - Thomas Liquor

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 217085.

Summary

Applicant
Lauren Merrett, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
2807 N. 35th 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. This location requires a Use Permit to allow package liquor sales
and drive-through window.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 17, 2023.

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




Page 31

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

Quick Stop (Series 10)
7938 N. 59th Ave., Glendale
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 meet all of the requirements for capability and qualifications listed in Title 4.”

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 operated with a liquor license in the past and therefore the issuance
of a license now will allow for continuity of operations.”

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 - Thomas Liquor
Liquor License Map - Thomas Liquor

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



Page 32
Liquor License Data: THOMAS LIQUOR
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Wholesaler 4 6 4

Bar 6 5 1

Beer and Wine Bar 7 3 3

Liquor Store 9 2 0

Beer and Wine Store 10 9 4

Restaurant 12 8 2


Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 55.88 130.12 132.16

Violent Crimes 10.65 28.55 28.55

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 81

Total Violations 90 137




Page 33
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1101002 1880 31 % 18 % 37 %

1101004 1252 80 % 7% 41 %

1121001 989 53 % 5% 35 %

1121002 1598 60 % 3% 32 %

1122011 2386 70 % 3% 37 %

1169001 2535 66 % 12 % 50 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 34
Liquor License Map: THOMAS LIQUOR
2807 N 35TH AVE




Ü
Date: 11/22/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 35



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - CASA Academy

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

Summary

Applicant
Tacey Cundy

Location
8047 N. 35th Ave.
Council District: 5

Function
Annual School Dinner

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Feb. 24, 2023 - 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 250 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 36



Report

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
Margaret Dodd

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

Function
Symphony Performance

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 27, 2023 - 6:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Jan. 28, 2023 - 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. / 904 attendees
Jan. 29, 2023 - 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. / 904 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 37



Report

Liquor License - LCD's AMA Social Club

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 215483.

Summary

Applicant
Okema Charles, Agent

License Type
Series 14 - Club

Location
4825 E. Warner Road, Ste. 13
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 6

This request is for a new liquor license for a private club. 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 Jan. 9, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration may be given only to the applicant's personal
qualifications and not to the location.

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

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

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


Page 38

applicant on the City Questionnaire.

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have taken the liquor classes and will be accountable with the handling of liquor at
the location.”

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 39



Report

Liquor License - True Food Kitchen

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 12077668.

Summary

Applicant
Scott Bowman, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
2502 E. Camelback Road, Ste. 135
Zoning Classification: PSC CEPCSP
Council District: 6

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 20, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

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

True Food (Series 12)
15191 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale
Calls for police service: N/A - not in Phoenix


Page 40

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:
“As chief Financial officer of the business, I am responsible for the finances of the
company and its 40+ locations in multiple states.”

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 41



Report

Liquor License - Foothills Golf Club

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 06070434.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 6 - Bar

Location
2201 E. Clubhouse Drive
Zoning Classification: RE-35 SP PCD
Council District: 6

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 21, 2023.

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 42


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:
“Foothills Golf Club has been a popular golf club in Phoenix for many years. Applicant
would like to continue to offer guests 21 and over the opportunity to enjoy alcoholic
beverages as an additional amenity to their golf experience.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Foothills Golf Club
Liquor License Map - Foothills Golf Club

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




Page 43
Liquor License Data: FOOTHILLS GOLF CLUB
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Bar 6 1 1



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 55.88 7.24 11.25

Violent Crimes 10.65 0.87 0.95

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



Property Violation Data

Description Average 1/2 Mile Average

Parcels w/Violations 51 0

Total Violations 89



Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1167142 2014 81 % 1% 8%

1167253 1407 89 % 0% 11 %

1167254 1573 58 % 0% 5%

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 44
Liquor License Map: FOOTHILLS GOLF CLUB
2201 E CLUBHOUSE DR




Ü
Date: 11/28/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 45



Report

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

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

Summary

Applicant
R John Largay

Location
67 W. Culver St.
Council District: 7

Function
Music Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
March 3, 2023 - 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. / 12,000 attendees
March 4, 2023 - 10 a.m. to 11 p.m. / 12,000 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 46



Report

Liquor License - Holiday Inn Express and Suites Phoenix Downtown-State
Capitol

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 214961.

Summary

Applicant
Dharmesh Ahir, Agent

License Type
Series 10 - Beer and Wine Store

Location
950 W. Van Buren St.
Zoning Classification: PUD CMOD
Council District: 7

This request is for a new beer and wine store liquor license for a hotel. 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 Jan. 8, 2023.

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 47

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:
“The Holiday Inn Express and Suites Phoenix Downtown - State Capitol will be
operated in a responsible manner regarding alcohol sales from its gift/convenience
portion of the premise. The applicant has received basic and management and liquor
training and intends to follow all Title 4 liquor laws.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“This downtown hotel is a new, bright, and clean hotel with a national brand. The
applicant is applying for a liquor license in its gift/convenience market to provide a
convenience to its guests. The applicant is committed to be a good neighbor and
responsible liquor licensee.”

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

Attachments
Liquor License Data - Holiday Inn Express and Suites Phoenix Downtown-State
Capitol
Liquor License Map - Holiday Inn Express and Suites Phoenix Downtown-State Capitol

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




Page 48
L




Page 49
Page 50
Liquor License Map: HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS AND SUITES PHOENIX DOWNTOWN-STATE CAPITOL


950 W VAN BUREN ST




Ü
Date: 11/15/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 51



Report

Liquor License - Special Event - One Arizona

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

Summary

Applicant
Cindy Louie

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

Function
Street Food Festival

Date(s) - Time(s) / Expected Attendance
Jan. 14, 2023 - 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. / 1,000 attendees

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of this application.

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




Page 52



Report

Liquor License - Radisson Hotel Phoenix Airport

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 11073129.

Summary

Applicant
Andrea Lewkowitz, Agent

License Type
Series 11 - Hotel/Motel

Location
427 N. 44th St.
Zoning Classification: C-2 M-R
Council District: 8

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

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 17, 2023.

Pursuant to A.R.S. 4-203, consideration should be given only to the applicant's
personal qualifications.

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

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

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


Page 53

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.”

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

Liquor License - Original Hot Dog Factory & Spice Wing

Request for a liquor license. Arizona State License Application 217758.

Summary

Applicant
Theresa Morse, Agent

License Type
Series 12 - Restaurant

Location
4645 E. Broadway Road, Ste. 106
Zoning Classification: C-2
Council District: 8

This request is for a new liquor license for a restaurant. This location was not
previously licensed for liquor sales and does not have an interim permit. This business
is currently being remodeled with plans to open in February 2023.

The 60-day limit for processing this application is Jan. 15, 2023.

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 55

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

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

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

I have the capability, reliability and qualifications to hold a liquor license because:
“I have worked in the liquor industry for approximately 10 years and I am a business
owner in addition to the proposed restaurant. I have attended both Basic and
Management Liquor Law Training in Arizona and will ensure my staff is trained once
they are hired. I am familiar with the valid forms of identification to accept in Arizona
to sell alcoholic beverages and am knowledgeable to identify obviously intoxicated
individuals and underage.”

The public convenience requires and the best interest of the community will be
substantially served by the issuance of the liquor license because:
“I researched areas in Phoenix to determine which community would be best served
by my restaurant. The public convenience will be served well in this area as the food I
will provide is the primary purpose. Alcoholic beverages are simply to complement the
food. I am looking forward to owning a business in Phoenix and working with the local
community and neighborhood organizations.”

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 - Original Hot Dog Factory & Spice Wing
Liquor License Map - Original Hot Dog Factory & Spice Wing

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



Page 56
Liquor License Data: ORIGINAL HOT DOG FACTORY &
SPICE WING
Liquor License

Description Series 1 Mile 1/2 Mile

Producer 1 1 0

Wholesaler 4 3 0

Bar 6 1 0

Beer and Wine Bar 7 4 2

Beer and Wine Store 10 7 2

Hotel 11 4 0

Restaurant 12 4 3

Club 14 1 0



Crime Data

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

Property Crimes 57.02 45.88 74.41

Violent Crimes 10.91 9.26 21.01

*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 51 12

Total Violations 89 19




Page 57
Census 2010 Data 1/2 Mile Radius

BlockGroup 2010 Population Owner Occupied Residential Vacancy Persons in Poverty

1152001 1118 13 % 16 % 58 %

1152003 546 8% 44 % 45 %

1162041 1426 79 % 6% 24 %

1162042 1819 57 % 0% 32 %

1162043 535 59 % 24 % 8%

3197041 1777 42 % 9% 20 %

Average 61 % 13 % 19 %




Page 58
Liquor License Map: ORIGINAL HOT DOG FACTORY & SPICE WING
4645 E BROADWAY RD




Ü
Date: 12/13/2022
0 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
mi


City Clerk Department
Page 59




PAYMENT ORDINANCE (Ordinance S-49286) (Items 19-27)
Ordinance S-49286 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.

19 General Atomics Intl. Services Corp., d.b.a. Cryotech
Deicing Technology
For $35,000 in payment authority for a one-time purchase of Cryotech
proprietary E36 liquid chemical deicer (chemical deicer) for the Aviation
Department. The Aviation Department recently purchased a
trailer-mounted deicer to support the Phoenix Sky Harbor International
Airport Extreme Winter Weather Operations Program. The chemical
deicer agent is required in conjunction with the deicing equipment.
Cryotech will provide the chemical deicer and complimentary on-site initial
and refresher training for application.

20 Alliance for Innovation, Inc.
For $9,000 in payment authority to purchase 2023 annual membership
dues of the Alliance for Innovation (AFI) for the Budget and Research
Department. The City of Phoenix has been a member of the Alliance for
Innovation (AFI) since 2006. AFI is an international network of local
governments and partners committed to driving innovation and proactive
strategic planning to enhance organizations' operations and build stronger
communities. AFI advances these values by sharing emerging practices,
cutting-edge research, and professional development opportunities
through its partnership with Strategic Government Resources. As a
longstanding AFI member, the City of Phoenix has previously participated


Page 60

in and hosted the annual Transforming Local Government Conference.
AFI member benefits and resources are available to all City of Phoenix
employees. Funding is available in the Budget and Research
Department's budget.

21 Discover Phoenix and Arizona, LLC
For $12,600 in additional payment authority for Contract 155621 to
provide additional trade development services in Mexico for the
Community and Economic Development Department and authority to
extend the contract through Feb. 28, 2023, to allow time to amend the
contract and process final invoices. The increased spending authority is
necessary to cover costs associated with additional activity generated by
recent trade missions and delegations to Hermosillo and to Mexico City,
which have included meetings and presentations with elected officials,
dignitaries and businesses representatives from companies considering
business opportunities in Phoenix. These missions were in addition to the
trade development services anticipated in the contract's original scope of
work. The goals of the missions included elevating Phoenix's profile as a
trade and investment partner and developing and strengthening business
relationships between Phoenix and Mexico.

22 Home Builders Marketing, Inc.
For $25,000 in payment authority for an online housing market data and
analysis subscription of the Phoenix metropolitan area for the Community
and Economic Development Department for up to five years. With this
data and analysis, the City will be able to generate area-specific, targeted
reports to help promote economic development activities to tenants,
investors, developers, builders, contractors, and lenders. Staff will also
use this data and analysis to expand the pool of potential bidders for
Arizona State Trust Lands in or near Phoenix that will be auctioned in the
future.

23 Partnership for Economic Innovation (PEI)
For $50,000 in payment authority to pay the annual membership fee for
the City Manager's Office and Information Technology Services
Department for The Connective, a Smart Cities initiative of the Partnership
for Economic Innovation. The City of Phoenix is a leading participant in
The Connective with a mission to transform Arizona into a top global


Page 61

market for innovation and establish the first Smart Region. The
Connective will also support the City in scientific evaluations of initiatives,
pilot projects, and existing processes to reduce costs, improve
performance, and advance innovation across City departments. This item
was approved by the Economic Development and Equity Subcommittee
on Oct. 26, 2022, and by City Council during the Formal meeting on Nov.
16, 2022.

24 bluemedia, Inc.
For $13,600 in payment authority to purchase custom fabricated Super
Bowl LVII letters for the Parks and Recreation Department. As part of
Super Bowl LVII, bluemedia, Inc. is custom fabricating several sets of
Super Bowl LVII letters to be displayed at several surrounding cities. The
department will utilize bluemedia, Inc. for the same styled letters to be
displayed at Margaret T. Hance Park (Hance Park). The display letters will
provide a unique photo opportunity for Phoenix residents and visitors of
Hance Park prior to and during Super Bowl LVII events scheduled around
February 2023. The Arizona Super Bowl LVII Host Committee is utilizing
bluemedia, Inc. solely to fabricate and install the letters providing an
aesthetically uniform display across the cities. Funding is available in the
Parks and Recreation Department's budget.

25 HCP GQL Holdings, LLC dba Great Western Leasing
and Sales
For $10,000 in additional payment authority for Contract 148856 for fuel
tanker inspections for the Public Works Department. There are four tanker
trucks that deliver fuel products to various City fuel sites and generators
on a daily basis. This contract is to maintain the fleet with repairs on the
fuel tanks, pumps, plumbing and grounding systems and to maintain
compliance with Maricopa County Air Pollution Control Regulations with
annual vapor testing.

26 Arizona Department of Transportation
For $100,000 in payment authority to the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) for administrative fees associated with project
management design reviews conducted by ADOT staff on City of
Phoenix-managed federal highway funded projects. These projects are
required to be reviewed and approved through ADOT, and this ordinance


Page 62

will allow for the payment of project management design review fees for
these projects through June 30, 2028. Payments will be made using
Street Transportation Department's Capital Improvement Program funds.

27 Settlement of Claim(s) 525 Bethany LLC v. City of
Phoenix
To make payment of up to $729,000 in settlement of claim(s) in 525
Bethany LLC v. City of Phoenix, 21-1075-001, GL, PD, for the Finance
Department pursuant to Phoenix City Code Chapter 42. This is a
settlement for a claim involving a broken watermain pipe on May 26, 2022.




Page 63



Report

Selection of Vice Mayor

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

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




Page 64



Report

Proposed I-17 and Deer Hollow Lane Annexation (Ordinance S-49314)

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of the
Phoenix, designated as the I-17 and Deer Hollow Lane 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 Adam Baugh with Withey Morris, PLC, 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 Sept. 21, 2022, to allow the City Council to gather
community comment regarding the annexation proposal. Notification of the public
hearing was published in the Arizona Business Gazette newspaper, and posted in at
least three conspicuous places in the territory proposed to be annexed. Also, notice by
first-class mail was sent to each property owner in the are proposed to be annexed.

Location
The proposed annexation area includes Maricopa County Assessor parcel 202-22-
003L, located at I-17 and Deer Hollow Lane (Attachment A). The annexation area is
approximately 5.95 acres (0.0093 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is three
individuals.

Council District: 1

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



Page 65
ATTACHMENT A




Page 66



Report

Proposed 95th Avenue and Broadway Road Annexation (Ordinance S-49315)

Request City Council authorization to extend and increase the corporate limits of
the City of Phoenix, Ariz., by annexing an area not within the present limits of the
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 Douglas Schreiber with Desert West Storage
LLC, 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 Sept. 21, 2022, to allow 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 101-36-
011P, located at 9349 W. Broadway Road (Attachment A). The annexation area is
approximately 9.52 acres (0.0149 sq. mi.) and the population estimate is three
individuals.

Council District: 7




Page 67

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




Page 68
ATTACHMENT A




Page 69



Report

Form of the Ballot for the March 14, 2023 Runoff Election for Districts 6 and 8 -
Emergency Clause (Ordinance S-49316)

An ordinance establishing the form of the ballot for the City of Phoenix Runoff Election
in City Council District 6 and District 8 to be held on Tuesday, March 14, 2023 and
declaring an emergency. This election is necessary as no candidate received a
majority of the votes cast for these offices in the November 2022 Council Election.

Emergency Clause
The emergency clause is necessary to meet legal requirements for the start of early
voting.

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




Page 70



Report

Designation of Voting Centers for the March 2023 Runoff Election (Ordinance
S-49317)

Request for the City Council to designate voting centers for the City of Phoenix
Runoff Election for Council Districts 6 and 8 to be held on March 14, 2023 and
establish the days and hours for voting.

Summary
There are 10 voting center locations being proposed for the March 14, 2023 Runoff
Election. For the proposed voting centers, all 10 sites are commonly used locations
in City-conducted elections. Registered voters in City of Phoenix Council Districts 6
and 8 can go to any of the voting center locations to cast a ballot.

The voting centers will be open on the following dates and times:
· Saturday, March 11, 2023 from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m.
· Monday, March 13, 2023 from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.
· Tuesday, March 14, 2023 (Election Day) from 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Public Outreach
Households with one or more registered voters will receive a Sample Ballot
Pamphlet (SBP) in early February 2023. The SBP will contain information about the
election, a list and map showing the voting center locations, and the days and hours
the voting centers will be open. Information also will be available online at
phoenix.gov/elections. All election information will be provided in English and
Spanish.

An interactive voting center locator will be available online at phoenix.gov/elections.
The locator will allow a voter to enter an address or use their current location on a
mobile device to identify the nearest voting centers and see the level of voting
activity at each location.

Location
A map of the proposed voting center locations is attached (Attachment A).



Page 71


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




Page 72
ATTACHMENT A

RI
VE
R
NE
W City of Phoenix
Voting Centers - March 2023 Election
Municipalidad
Municipalidad de de Phoenix
Phoenix
RIVER Centros de Votación - Elección de marzo de 2023
CLOUD 19TH
NEW
7TH VOTING CENTER LOCATION LIST
LISTA DE LAS UBICACIONES DE LOS CENTROS DE VOTACIÓN
NO
VC# VOTING CENTER FACILITY NAME
H
RT
A303 LONE MOUNTAIN 1 Sunnyslope Community Center
LEY SONORAN PRESERVE LANDS
VAL
802 E. Vogel Ave.
2 Bethany Bible Church
I17 K
EE 6060 N. 7th Ave.
3 Devonshire Senior Center
TATUM
CR
JOMAX JOMAX 2802 E. Devonshire Ave.
CA
HAPPY VALLEY
VE 4 Memorial Presbyterian Church
67TH 4141 E. Thomas Rd.




SCOTTSDALE
5 Burton Barr Central Library
43RD
PINNACLE PEAK
DEER VALLEY
1221 N. Central Ave.
6 Eastlake Park Community Center
A A101
BEARD SLEY A101 A101 PIM 1549 E. Jefferson St.
7 Broadway Heritage Neighborhood Res. Ctr.
7TH UNION HILLS A51 2405 E. Broadway Rd.
7TH
8 South Mountain Community Center
BELL 16TH



SCOTTSDALE
212 E. Alta Vista Rd.
32ND 9 Cesar Chavez Branch Library
3635 W. Baseline Rd.
THUNDER 64TH
51ST 10 Pecos Community Center
56TH
BIRD
A51 40TH 17010 S. 48th St.
CACTUS
I17
PEORIA SHEA
7TH 64TH
DUNLAP !1
PIESTEWA
PEAK
27TH
GLENDALE


A51 16TH
LINC OLN
I17 2
!
32ND
107TH
CAMELBACK
99TH




BLACK CANYON
A101 43RD 40TH 64TH
CENTRAL
67TH 24TH
!3
A101 THOMAS 56TH
59TH I17 !4 MCDOWELL
I10 I10 I10 A202 A20
83RD 51ST !5 2
VAN BUREN

MC85 A202 BUCKEYE !6 A143
75TH 44TH
LOWER BUCKEYE UNIVERSITY
91ST 83RD
107TH
7TH A143
99TH 19TH

67TH 67TH
!7 40TH
83RD 27TH
91ST !8 32ND
A202 35TH
75TH
A202 A202 51ST !9
43RD
DOBBINS




q
35TH
ELLIOT ELLIOT

SOUTH MOUNTAIN ER
02 RN
A2 WA
I10
Miles DLER
0 1 2 4
CHAN 48TH
Prepared by the City Clerk Department A202 A202 24TH
Preparado por la Secretaría Municipal 10
!
Page 73



Report

Grant of Irrigation Easement to Salt River Project for the Southern Avenue - 37th
Lane to 41st Avenue Aesthetics Project (Ordinance S-49290)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to grant an irrigation
easement to Salt River Project (SRP) within the south half of the Southern Avenue
right-of-way at approximately 41st Avenue and from approximately 39th Avenue to
37th Lane.

Additionally request the City Council grant an exception pursuant to Phoenix City Code
section 42-20 to authorize inclusion in the Salt River Project easement indemnification
and assumption of liability provisions that otherwise would be prohibited by Phoenix
City Code section 42-18. These provisions would obligate the City to defend and
indemnify Salt River Project against liabilities or claims caused by any defect or
deficiency in City’s title relating to the Salt River Project easement, including but not
limited to claims of trespass or inverse condemnation.

Summary
An approximate 10,331-square-foot irrigation easement within the south half of the
Southern Avenue right-of-way at approximately 41st Avenue and from approximately
39th Avenue to 37th Lane is required to connect Salt River Project (SRP) irrigation
facilities for construction of the Southern Avenue - 37th Lane to 41st Avenue
Aesthetics Project.

Location
Within the south half of the Southern Avenue right-of-way at approximately 41st
Avenue and from approximately 37th Lane to 38th Avenue.
Council District: 7

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




Page 74



Report

Acceptance of an Easement for Preservation (Ordinance S-49309)

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

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: Fazio Family Trust, Dated 04-19-2022, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Preservation
Location: 1913 E. Janice Way
File: FN 220095
Council District: 3

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




Page 75



Report

Acceptance and Dedication of Easements for Sidewalk and Public Utility
Purposes (Ordinance S-49305)

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

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

Easement (a)
Applicant: DV Parcel A-1 Owner LP, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 23625 N. 19th Ave.
File: FN 220075
Council District: 1

Easement (b)
Applicant: Rebuild the Block, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Public Utility
Location: 6836 N. 13th Place
File: FN 220097
Council District: 6

Easement (c)
Applicant: High Place Properties, LLC, its successor and assigns
Purpose: Sidewalk
Location: 3609 N. 44th St.
File: FN 220094
Council District: 6

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


Page 76



Report

Technology Consulting Professional Service Agreement - Contract 144634 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49307)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 144634 with AskReply, Inc. dba B2GNOW to extend the contract term.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using Ordinance S-48271.

Summary
This contract will provide the B2GNOW software system to support diversity-based
contracting, certification, and outreach programs. The software is integrated with
contracting processes utilized by contractors, vendors, and other City of Phoenix
departments such as the Water Services, Street Transportation, Public Transit, and
Aviation Departments. The B2GNOW system allows for frequent updates to vendor
lists, which is essential to the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Aviation
Administration assisted goal-setting requirements. The software provides for instant
retrieval of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Airport Concessionaire
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (ACDBE), and Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
firms by North American Industry Classification System codes, which is essential for
DBE and SBE goal-setting. The six-month contract extension will ensure continued
services while the new procurement is completed.

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

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

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $155,345 and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Technology Consulting Professional Service Agreement Requirements Contract -


Page 77

Contract 144634 (Ordinance S-43126) on Jan. 11, 2017.
• Technology Consulting Professional Service Agreement Requirements Contract -
Contract 144634 (Ordinance S-48271) on Jan. 26, 2022.

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




Page 78



Report

Temporary Staffing Services, Requirements Contract - RFQu 19-060 -
Amendment (Ordinance S-49311)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 149759 with Nesco Resource, LLC; Contract 149757 with
Scott Business Group, LLC; Contract 149758 with Accurate Placement, LC; Contract
149754 with All About People, Inc.; Contract 149755 with Accounting & Finance
Professionals, Inc.; and Contract 149756 with RW Staffing Solutions, LLC for the
purchase of Temporary Staffing Services for all City departments. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional
expenditures will not exceed $9 million.

Summary
Additional funds are needed to continue providing this crucial service to the City.
These contracts provide temporary staff to all departments on an as-needed basis.
Temporary staff are necessary to fulfill short-term or highly specialized staffing needs
and to assist in the management of staffing shortages throughout the organization in
support of critical citywide business and facility operations. Departments use the most
cost-effective contract to hire qualified temporary staff.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $9 million in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $36.5 million. Funds are available in various departments'
budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved this request:
• Temporary Staffing Services - Contracts 149754, 149755, 149756, 149757, 149758,
149759 - Ordinance S-45422 on April 17, 2019.

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


Page 79



Report

Communications Infrastructure Locating Services Contract - ITS IFB 23-001 -
Request for Award (Ordinance S-49304)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Tel Tech Networks, Inc. to provide communications infrastructure locating services
for the Information Technology Services (ITS) Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
the agreement will not exceed $1.9 million.

Summary
ITS operates and maintains the enterprise communications infrastructure that
geographically covers more than 500 square miles. This agreement will allow ITS to
continue to purchase communications infrastructure locating services and temporary
markings related to underground communications infrastructure, such as empty
conduit, fiber optic cabling, and copper cabling, prior to excavation. Locating and
marking prior excavation is required by law to prevent accidental damage or service
interruption by those engaged in subsurface excavation and drilling, which is a legal
requirement for all underground facility owners-operators. Part of that maintenance
responsibility is the protection of the City's infrastructure while providing continuous
connectivity for the voice, video, and data networks which supports critical systems for
departments such as Fire, Police, Aviation, and Water Services.

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

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid deemed to be responsive to solicitation specifications and
responsible to provide the required goods and services. Two other bids were received,
but deemed non-responsive for non-compliance with solicitation requirements.


Page 80

Following an evaluation based on price, the procurement officer recommends award to
the following vendor:

Selected Bidder
Tel Tech Networks, Inc.: $1,872,000

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2023, for a five-year term.

Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $1.9 million. Funding is available in the
Information Technology Services Department's budget.

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




Page 81



Report

Senior Services Entertainers and/or Instructors Qualified Vendor List - RFQu-22-
CSSD-68 (Ordinance S-49306)

Request authorization for the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts
and approve adding responsive offerors to the existing Qualified Vendor List (QVL) for
Senior Services Entertainers and/or Instructors. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse funds in an amount not to exceed $750,000 for the life of the
QVL. Funding is available in the Human Services Department's (HSD) General Fund
and the City's American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) allocation as part of the Memory
Cafe program.

Summary
Through its 15 Senior Centers, HSD offers a variety of programs and services
designed to promote independence, maintain dignity and maximize the quality of life
for Phoenix residents. These programs and services include (a) dance, fitness, music,
art, theater, language, computer, and internet classes, (b) referrals for supportive
services, and (c) the Memory Cafe program.

Staff requests adding seven new vendors to the Senior Services Entertainers and/or
Instructors QVL.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. HSD received a total of seven offers on Nov. 14, 2022, and all offers
were determined to be responsive and responsible to the solicitation requirements.

The Procurement Officer evaluated all offers for Pass/Fail criterion on the following
minimum qualifications: Two years of verifiable instruction experience and/or
certification for all services being submitted.

The following offerors met all solicitation criteria and are recommended to be added to
the existing QVL:

· Data Driven Wellness Consulting, LLC
· Sunshine Music Therapy, LLC


Page 82

· Shannon Wallace DBA Musical Music Care
· Laura Thurbon DBA Laura Thurbon Art
· Philia Wellness, LLC
· Kay Guidera
· Wellness Source, LLC

Contract Term
The QVL is in effect from Oct. 20, 2021, through June 30, 2025, with no options to
extend. The resulting contracts will be in effect on or about Jan. 1, 2023, through June
30, 2025.

Financial Impact
The total cost of the contracts will not exceed $750,000 over the life of the QVL.
Funding is available in the HSD's General Fund and ARPA allocation. All ARPA funds
will be expended by Dec. 31, 2023.

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




Page 83



Report

Head Start Birth to Five Program Digital Platform for Conferences and Events
Qualified Vendors List - RFQu-22-EDU-67 (Ordinance S-49310)

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 a
digital platform for conferences and events for the Head Start Birth to Five Program in
an amount not to exceed $750,000 for a five-year period. Further request to authorize
the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. Further request City
Council to authorize inclusion of limitation of liability and indemnity provisions in
resulting agreements pursuant to City Code 42-20.

Summary
The City of Phoenix Head Start Birth to Five Program is a high-quality early education
and child development program whose goal is to prevent and eliminate a learning gap
for low-income families. The program serves 3,451 children in three service options
and encompasses Head Start Preschool programs, which primarily serve three- and
four-year-old children, Early Head Start programs for infants and toddlers, and for
pregnant women in a Home-Based setting or through a Child Care Partner.

Head Start has an ongoing need to provide information and professional development
opportunities for parents, staff and community partners through professional speakers
and trainers. A digital platform for in-person, virtual and hybrid events will support
multiple conferences, meetings, trainings and seminars.

As is standard with software and technology services agreements, the qualified
vendors may refuse to provide services absent limitation of liability and indemnity
language which requires Council approval under Phoenix City Code section 42-20.
Accordingly, such approval is requested to consummate agreements with qualified
vendors under standard and customary limitation of liability and indemnification
provisions in accordance with current market expectations.

The QVL is meant to identify qualified contractors to provide a web-based software
dedicated to enhancing the attendees' experience during live, virtual and/or hybrid
events.



Page 84

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was conducted in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

Five proposals were received. Four were deemed responsive and responsible. An
evaluation committee of City staff evaluated the offers based on the following criteria:

· Company History and Relevant Background
· Description of Essential Product Features
· Pricing
· Product Demonstrations

After reaching consensus, the evaluation committee recommends contract award to
the following:

· Cvent, Inc.
· vFAIRS, LLC

Contract Term
The contract term will begin on or about Jan. 2, 2023, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.

Financial Impact
Expenditures shall not exceed $750,000 over the life of the contracts. 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 Dec. 13, 2021, the Head Start Birth to Five Policy Council approved the request to
release the Digital Platform for Conferences and Events Request for Qualifications.

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




Page 85



Report

Authorization to Enter into Contract with Community Legal Services (Ordinance
S-49320)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contract with
Community Legal Services to provide education and legal assistance to Phoenix
tenants residing in Las Casitas, Periwinkle and Weldon Court Mobile Home Parks
facing eviction proceedings. The total value of the contract will not exceed $300,000.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. Funding is available from the Human Services Department General Fund
operating budget.

Summary
The City of Phoenix continues to see an increase in the number of individuals
experiencing housing instability and homelessness, some of which is a result from an
increased number of evictions. As such, it is vitally important to prevent evictions
wherever possible. Community Legal Services will provide legal assistance, advocacy
and representation to Phoenix tenants residing in Las Casitas (1809 W. Buckeye Rd.),
Periwinkle (2728 W. Colter St.) and Weldon Court (1631 E. Weldon Ave.) Mobile Home
Parks to preserve their future housing opportunities and provide tenants with legal
support to effectively navigate within the eviction judicial system. Community Legal
Services does not charge a fee for their legal assistance, has an established
relationship with the Phoenix Justice Courts, and has considerable familiarity with
working with disadvantaged and vulnerable populations.

Contract Term
The term of the contract will begin on or about Jan. 5, 2023, and end on June 30,
2024.

Financial Impact
The total value of the contract will not exceed $300,000. Funding is available from the
Human Services Department General Fund operating budget.

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


Page 86



Report

Handyman and Millwork Services - IFB 18-090 - Amendment (Ordinance S-49295)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 146675 with Signature Facilities Maintenance, LLC to extend contract term
through Jan. 31, 2024. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. No additional funds are needed, request to continue using
Ordinance S-44184 for funding authority.

Summary
This contract will provide handyman and millwork services to the Library Department.
These services ensure that the library facilities are safe, functional, and operational for
both employees and citizens of Phoenix. Additional time is needed to complete
projects currently in process. An extension will allow for these crucial services to
continue and for ongoing projects to be completed.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Jan. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $412,500 and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Handyman and Millwork Services - Contract 146675 (Ordinance S-44184) on Jan.
10, 2018.

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




Page 87



Report

Amendment to Lease Agreement Between the City of Phoenix and The Desert
Botanical Garden, Inc. (Ordinance S-49312)

Request to authorize the City Manager or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Lease Agreement 18484, as previously amended by Amendment Numbers one and
two; entered into between the City of Phoenix and The Desert Botanical Garden, Inc.,
an Arizona nonprofit corporation.

Summary
Under the current terms of the 1977 Lease, The Desert Botanical Garden, Inc. (DBG)
leases land from the City in Papago Park for use as a botanical garden. Under
Amendment No. two to the lease, DBG uses City nonpotable Central Arizona Project
water delivered from Salt River Project's (SRP) nearby Crosscut Canal for watering the
DBG’s plants.

DBG has now obtained a Type Two, Non-Irrigation Grandfathered Right (Type 2 Right)
which will allow it to withdraw groundwater for its nonpotable uses. SRP has agreed to
withdraw groundwater from an SRP well on behalf of DBG and deliver it through the
Crosscut Canal for DBG’s nonpotable uses at its garden. DBG anticipates operational
benefits from the use of its Type 2 Right. Recognizing DBG as a significant cultural
and education asset of the City, this amendment would replace Amendment 2 and
would allow DBG to withdraw and use the groundwater in place of the City’s Central
Arizona Project water for nonpotable uses at the DBG. The City would provide a back-
up supply, should the DBG have the need, which would be nonpotable Central Arizona
Project water delivered through the Crosscut Canal, or potable water, at the City’s
option. DBG would pay the City normal rates and charges for any nonpotable or
potable water delivered.

Contract Term
This amendment does not alter the term of the 1977 Lease, which is subject to
renewal every five years.

Financial Impact
This amendment has no significant financial impact to the City, as it only alters the
amounts of City water that will be ordered and paid for by DBG.


Page 88


Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
• The Desert Botanical Garden Inc. Arizona Cactus and Native Flora Society Inc Lease
Agreement No. 18484-0 on July 1, 1977;
• The Desert Botanical Garden Inc. Amendment No. 18484-1 (Ordinance S-34392) on
Oct. 7, 2007;
• The Desert Botanical Garden Inc. Amendment No. 18484-2 (Ordinance S-38163) on
May 21, 2012.

Location
625 North Galvin Parkway
Council District: 6

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Karen Peters and Inger Erickson and
the Water Services and Parks and Recreation departments.




Page 89



Report

Occupational Clothing and Accessories - 148095 - Amendment (Ordinance S-
49292)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to allow additional
expenditures under Contract 148095 with 030530 Uniforms, LLC dba ACE Uniforms of
Phoenix for the purchase of Occupational Clothing and Accessories for the Parks and
Recreation Department. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all
funds related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $10,000.

Summary
This contract will provide local alteration and embroidery services to Park Ranger and
Groundskeeper staff for City-issued uniforms. The Parks and Recreation Department
was not previously included on this contract and must be added before utilizing these
services.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on June 30, 2023.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $10,000 in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $85,000. Funds are available in the Parks and Recreation
Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Gina Montes and Inger Erickson and
the Human Services and Parks and Recreation departments.




Page 90



Report

Aquatics Equipment, Accessories and Services - COOP 20-037 - Amendment
(Ordinance S-49288)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 152412 with Vortex Aquatic Structures International to extend contract term.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. No additional funds are needed; request to continue using Ordinance S-46290.

Summary
This contract will provide equipment and services which support efforts to repair and
replace current splash pad equipment and accessories, which are used in various
parks throughout the City. It is necessary to keep this contract going in order to have
the splash pads available for use during the summer season, pending the completion
of a new procurement by the Parks and Recreation Department. There are no
additional funds needed for this one-year extension.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Jan. 8, 2024.

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $100,000, and no additional funds
are needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
· Aquatics Equipment, Accessories and Services 152412 (Ordinance S-46290) on
Jan. 8, 2019.

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




Page 91



Report

Authorization to Utilize City-Owned Parcels for Temporary Farmers Market and
Enter Into a License with MAA Wellness Center, Inc. (Ordinance S-49313)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a license and
other agreements as necessary with MAA Wellness Center, Inc. for the operation of a
temporary farmers market on vacant City-owned property at the southwest corner of
24th Street and Broadway Road. Further request authorization for the City Treasurer to
accept all necessary funds related to this item. No impact to the General Fund.

Summary
The Neighborhood Services Department (NSD) manages a City-owned parcel in South
Phoenix, on the southwest corner of 24th Street and Broadway Road. The parcel has
been vacant for a number of years. NSD, in partnership with the Community and
Economic Development Department (CEDD) is in the process of seeking
redevelopment opportunities for the site. Extensive community outreach has been
conducted as part of the effort, and CEDD is actively working on a request for
proposals (RFP) which will seek a retail development to bring several new amenities
for the community including healthy food options, health care services and other retail
options. Through the public engagement conducted as part of this process, the
community cited the need for healthy food options as a top priority for this
development and the area has been identified as a food desert. The RFP and future
development preparation process is anticipated to take more than a year. Until the time
a development project is ready to move forward, CEDD and NSD are seeking to
activate the site with a temporary farmers market, which will serve the surrounding
community and infuse healthy food options into the area. CEDD and NSD seek to
partner with a local business, MAA Wellness Center, Inc., to program and oversee
operations of the farmers market. MAA Wellness Center, Inc. has agreed to enter into
a license agreement and other agreements as necessary to facilitate their use of the
property.

Contract Term
The term of the license is 12 months with month-to-month extensions.

Financial Impact
The license fee will be based on market rent and/or other valuable consideration, and


Page 92

any fees received will be reinvested by the Neighborhood Services Department into
the community.

Location
Southwest corner of 24th Street and Broadway Road (Parcel Number: 122-43-003K)
Council District: 8

Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Ginger Spencer and Alan
Stephenson, and the Community and Economic Development and Neighborhood
Services departments.




Page 93



Report

Vestar Development II, Inc., Development Agreement for Public Infrastructure
Improvements (Ordinance S-49318)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to negotiate and enter into a
development agreement, and any other agreements as necessary, with Vestar
Development II, Inc., or its City-approved designee for the installation of public
infrastructure improvements to include Dobbins Road from the Arizona Department of
Transportation (ADOT) improvements east to 59th Avenue, and 59th Avenue from
Dobbins Road to the southern boundary of the Vestar Development II, Inc.'s proposed
development. Further request authorization for the City Controller to disburse funds
under the terms of the agreement.

Summary
Vestar Development II, Inc. (Developer) is the owner of approximately 90 acres at the
southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road (Site). As part of the first phase of
development of the Site, the Developer proposes to construct a 375,000 square foot
highly desirable vibrant town center on approximately 40 acres, which is designated as
the Laveen Towne Center (Project). The Project will consist of national major anchor
tenants, smaller anchor retail tenants, an entertainment user, a community gathering
space, and accompanying pads and shops for lease, as well as rehabilitate and
restore the Historic Hudson Farmhouse.

This area of Phoenix continues to be a high demand and high growth area for both
new residential and employment uses. Although the area continues to expand, retail
amenities continue to be in short supply and more options are needed to meet
demand. This amenity-rich Project will not only serve residents and employees living
and working in and around the South Mountain Technology Corridor and the
community at large; but will also assist to alleviate the sales tax leakage Phoenix
experiences as a result of the lack of retail amenities in the area. The Project is
expected to add several hundred new jobs to the area over the next five years. To
accommodate this growth, increased traffic, and the creation of the Project, additional
public infrastructure improvements are required. Through a development agreement
(DA), the Developer will construct the required public infrastructure improvements and
the City will reimburse the Developer a maximum of $25 million (Reimbursement Cap)
upon completion of construction, the City's acceptance of the improvements and the


Page 94

dedication of the public improvements to the City. The public infrastructure
improvements (Improvements) are as follows:

· A full width street to complete eastbound Dobbins Road from the ADOT
improvements east to 59th Avenue, to include but not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, surveying, engineering and design, excavation, site work, completion of
all travel lanes and center turn lane, street lighting, traffic controls, utility work, and
other related improvements (including hardscape and landscape) as required by the
City.
· A full width street to complete southbound 59th Avenue from Dobbins Road to the
southern boundary of the Project. To include but not limited to: curb, gutter,
sidewalk, surveying, engineering and design, excavation, site work, completion of
all travel lanes and center median,street lighting, traffic controls, utility work, and
other related improvements (including hardscape and landscape) as required by the
City.
· Installation of public utilities, including water, sewer and waste water, as required by
the City.
· Rehabilitate and restore the Historic Hudson Farmstead house.
· Developer will privately finance and construct the Improvements.

Developer must comply with Title 34 of the Arizona Revised Statutes in constructing
the Improvements to qualify for reimbursement, and the specifics and cost of the
Improvements must be pre-approved by the City in order to qualify for reimbursement.

Reimbursement terms are as follows:

· Reimbursement shall be paid on an annual basis, in arrears, from the following
sources: Years 1 through 25: 100 percent of the City’s eligible General Fund portion
of the Transaction Privilege Taxes (TPT) as well as any applicable Development
Impact Fees collected and received by the City for constructed public improvements
that are within the Infrastructure Financing Plan, as verified by the City.
· The maximum reimbursement amount for the public infrastructure improvements,
as they relate to the Project will not exceed $25 million.
· Developer is required to restore the Historic Hudson Farmhouse, pursuant to
requirements from the Phoenix Historic Preservation Office and State of Arizona
Historic Preservation Office. In rehabilitating and restoring the Historic Hudson
Farmhouse located on the Site, the DA will not preclude Developer from seeking



Page 95

additional grants from the Phoenix Historic Preservation Commission or the State of
Arizona Historic Preservation Commission.
· Reimbursement shall not exceed actual verifiable costs for the approved
Improvements.
· The term shall begin upon commencement of construction of the first phase of the
Improvements, as made evident by the issuance of required permits (Construction
Commencement Date) and continue for a period of 25 years or upon the date
Developer has received reimbursements totaling the Reimbursement Cap.
· Reimbursement will not begin until after the Developer completes the
Improvements, and the City has accepted the Improvements.
· The development agreement and any other agreements as necessary will include
other terms and conditions as deemed necessary by the City.

The Project is an important economic development opportunity for the Laveen area
that will create several hundred new jobs over time and will provide much needed retail
amenities for the community, while yielding significant financial and public benefits for
the City of Phoenix.

Contract Term
The term is 25 years.

Financial Impact
The maximum reimbursement amount will be $25 million from the eligible General
Fund portion of the TPT collected and received by the City from the Project as well as
applicable Development Impact Fees available for these Improvements. This does not
include any historic preservation grant(s) as reviewed and approved the Historic
Preservation section of the Planning and Development Department.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
This item was recommended for approval by the Economic Development and Equity
Subcommittee at the Dec. 13, 2022 meeting.

Public Outreach
This item was presented at the quarterly Laveen Community Meeting on Dec. 12,
2022.

Location
Generally located on the southwest corner of 59th Avenue and Dobbins Road
Council District: 7


Page 96


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




Page 97



Report

***REQUEST TO WITHDRAW (SEE ATTACHED MEMO)*** Radiology Read
Services Contract for the Fire Department (Ordinance S-49287)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
DVT Radiology, LLC to provide radiology read services for the Fire Department.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The aggregate contract value will not exceed $259,775.

Summary
The Fire Department Health Center provides on-site radiology imaging for all new
firefighter hires, firefighter industrial injuries, periodic x-rays of existing firefighters, and
COVID-19 post-exposure evaluations. This service allows injured firefighters to move
quickly through the medical evaluation and healing process, and to return to work
expeditiously. The radiology images are submitted through an electronic and HIPAA-
compliant portal to be read by a board certified and licensed sub-specialty radiologist.
The radiologist then electronically communicates the diagnosis to the Health Center to
immediately begin treatment for the injured firefighter.

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

Procurement Information
In accordance with AR 3.10, standard competition was waived as a result of an
approved Determination Memo based on the following reason: Special Circumstances
Without Competition. The determination memo was approved by the Assistant Finance
Director recommending the contract with DVT Radiology, LLC.

The Fire Department went out to bid three times in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. No bids were received from the vendor community, and no awards
were made. Due to time constraints and the need to provide these critical services, the
Fire Department sought approval to go directly into contract with DVT Radiology, LLC.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Jan. 4, 2023, for a five-year term.



Page 98


Financial Impact
The aggregate contract value will not exceed $259,775 for the five-year term. Funding
is available in the Fire Department's operating budget.

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




Page 99
To: Lori Bays Date: December 30, 2022
Assistant City Manager

From: Scott Walker
Executive Assistant Fire Chief
Fire Department

Subject:
REQUEST TO WITHDRAW ITEM 48, RADIOLOGY READ SERVICES
CONTRACT FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT (ORDINANCE S-49287),
FROM THE JANUARY 4, 2023, FORMAL AGENDA


The purpose of this memo is to request approval to withdraw Item 48, Radiology Read
Services Contract for the Fire Department (Ordinance S-49287), from the January 4,
2023, Formal Agenda. Additional time is needed for the vendor to procure the
insurance.



Approved by:




Lori Bays Date: December 30, 2022
Assistant City Manager



Report

Fire Fighting Class A Foam - IFB 18-070 - Amendment (Ordinance S-49289)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute amendment to
Contract 146981 with Perimeter Solutions LP to extend the contract term through Dec.
31, 2023. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item. No additional funds are needed as the request is to continue using
Ordinance S-44166.

Summary
This contract will provide firefighting Class A Foam for the Fire Department. Currently,
the Fire Department operates under a tactical Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)
that states Class A Foam shall be used in any situation where plain water will not be as
effective as water mixed with the Class A Foam to break down the surface tension of
the water allowing it to better penetrate the burning material to quickly suppress a fire.
The Fire Department currently operates over 60 engines with on-board, pre-plumbed,
and multiple discharge direct injection foam systems, for use citywide.

The extension allows Central Procurement sufficient time to complete a new
solicitation while the Fire Department continues to provide critical property and life-
saving operations.

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

Financial Impact
The aggregate value of the contract will not exceed $446,000. No additional funds are
needed.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
• Fire Fighting Class A Foam Contract 146981 (Ordinance S-44166) on Jan. 10, 2018;
• Fire Fighting Class A Foam Contract 146981 (Ordinance S-48495) on April 20, 2022.

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


Page 100



Report

Widebody Passenger Boarding Ramp - IFB 23-017 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49291)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Aviramp Limited Company to purchase a widebody passenger boarding ramp to
accommodate both domestic and international flights during peak gate usage times for
the Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. Further request to authorize the City
Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of the contract will
not exceed $400,000.

Summary
This contract will provide a widebody passenger boarding ramp to accommodate
remote widebody aircraft operations when boarding gates are not available. Phoenix
Sky Harbor International Airport is expanding rapidly and the Aviation Department is
seeking to establish a hardstand gate operation. The widebody passenger boarding
ramp and remote boarding operation is a cost-effective solution to gate constraints
during high-demand periods. Passengers can enplane and deplane using a widebody
passenger boarding ramp and boarding a specialized busing operation via airfield
COBUS vehicles to and from terminals safely and quickly.

Procurement Information
An Invitation for Bid procurement was processed in accordance with City of Phoenix
Administrative Regulation 3.10.

One vendor submitted a bid and was deemed responsive and responsible to provide
the required goods and services. Following an evaluation based on price, the
Procurement Officer recommends award to the following vendor:

Selected Bidder
Aviramp Limited Company

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about Feb. 1, 2023, for a two-year contract term with no
options to extend.



Page 101


Financial Impact
The contract value will not exceed $400,000 for the two-year contract term. Funding is
available in the Aviation Department budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 102



Report

Aviation Event Equipment Rental and Services Contract - RFQu 23-016 - Request
for Award (Ordinance S-49296)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Site Solar, LLC, Rideau Audio & Video Productions LLC, Form Floral LLC, and
Southwest Teepee Rental LLC, to provide rental event equipment and 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 contracts will not exceed $400,000.

Summary
The Aviation Department hosts numerous community and special events throughout
the year, including support for Super Bowl LVII in February of 2023. The contracts will
support the Aviation Department's various events by providing necessary equipment
such as canopies, chairs, tables, lighting, materials, and labor and transportation as
required.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL). Offerors
were able to submit an offer for one or more of the groups based on its business
scope. The QVL has eight event equipment category groups as follows:

Group 1: Audio Visual
Group 2: Barricades
Group 3: Carpeting/Flooring
Group 4: Event Decor
Group 5: Florists
Group 6: Furniture/Event Rental
Group 7: Linens
Group 8: Tenting

Four offerors submitted qualifications for five out of eight groups and were deemed
responsive and responsible. The Procurement Officer evaluated all offers as pass or
fail based on the following minimum qualifications:



Page 103

· Offeror must have a minimum of two consecutive years of experience providing
rental event equipment and services in the last five years.
· Offeror must have an established branch office and/or operating facility located
within Maricopa County, Arizona.
· Offeror must provide a designated Project Manager with a minimum of one year of
experience within the last three years providing rental event equipment and
services to commercial customers.

The following vendors met the minimum qualification criteria and are being
recommended for award and for placement on the QVL:

Rideau Audio & Video Productions LLC: Group 1
Southwest Teepee Rental LLC: Groups 4, 5, 6 and 8
Form Floral LLC: Group 5
Site Solar, LLC: Group 6

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Jan. 15, 2023 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The contract values will not exceed $400,000. Funding is available in the Aviation
Department budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 104



Report

Phoenix Goodyear Airport New Apron and Taxiway Connector - Engineering
Services Amendment 1 - AV41000077 FAA (Ordinance S-49298)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 149734 with C&S Engineers, Inc., to provide additional engineering
services that include construction administration and inspection services for the
Phoenix Goodyear Airport New Apron and Taxiway Connector project. Further request
to authorize execution of amendments to the agreement as necessary within the
Council-approved expenditure authority as provided below, and for the City Controller
to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional fee for services included in this
amendment will not exceed $157,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to design a new apron and a new taxiway connector
between the apron and Taxiway A at the Phoenix Goodyear Airport. The design and
construction will require phasing of the project consistent with the grant availability
over several years. This will require evaluation and development of the project to
determine the best way to design, construct, and implement the overall project
consistent with grant funds.

This amendment is necessary to align with grant funding availability from the Federal
Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program and the Arizona Department of
Transportation. This amendment will provide additional funds and time to the
agreement.

C&S Engineers, Inc.’s additional services include, but are not limited to: construction
estimates; bidding assistance; construction safety plans; construction administration
and inspection; and all requirements to meet Federal Aviation Administration and
Airport Improvement Plan grant compliance.

Contract Term
The term of the agreement amendment 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.


Page 105


Financial Impact
The initial agreement for engineering services was approved for an amount not to
exceed $589,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs. This
amendment will increase the agreement by an additional $157,000, for a new total
amount not to exceed $746,000, including all subconsultant and reimbursable costs.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 149734, Ordinance S-45591 on May 1, 2019.

Location
Phoenix Goodyear Airport, 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.
Council District: Out of City

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




Page 106



Report

Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Relocate Taxiway B and Construct Connectors B6
and B9 - Construction Manager at Risk Preconstruction Services - AV31000092
FAA (Ordinance S-49299)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with J. Banicki Construction, Inc. to provide Construction Manager at Risk
Preconstruction Services for the Phoenix Deer Valley Airport Relocate Taxiway B and
Construct Connectors B6 and B9 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 $400,000.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to meet updated design standards required by Federal
Aviation Administration Advisory Circulars which define separation between runway
and adjacent taxiway. New angled connectors are also added to reduce runway
occupancy time and improve airfield efficiency.

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

J. Banicki Construction, Inc.’s services include, but are not limited to: detailed cost
estimating and knowledge of marketplace conditions; project planning and scheduling;
construction phasing and scheduling that will minimize interruption to airport and
stakeholder operations; construction phasing that matches grant funding amounts;
provide alternate systems evaluation and constructability studies; advise the City on
ways to gain efficiencies in project delivery; provide long-lead procurement studies and
initiate procurement of long-lead items; and assist in the permitting processes, and
protect the owner’s sensitivity to quality, safety, and environmental factors. A Small
Business Enterprise goal will be established for this project upon substantial
completion of Preconstruction Services and prior to the start of construction.




Page 107

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

Selected Firm
Rank 1: J. Banicki Construction, Inc.

Additional Proposers
Rank 2: Kiewit Infrastructure West, Co.
Rank 3: ViaSun Corporation
Rank 4: Rummel Construction, Inc.
Rank 5: Ames Construction, Inc.

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

Financial Impact
The agreement value for J. Banicki Construction, Inc. will not exceed $400,000,
including all subcontractor and reimbursable costs.

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

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 150110 (Ordinance S-45685) on June 5, 2019.

Location
702 W. Deer Valley Road
Council District: 1




Page 108

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




Page 109



Report

Burrell Aviation Goodyear, LLC Ground Lease at Phoenix Goodyear Airport
(Ordinance S-49308)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a ground lease
with Burrell Aviation Goodyear, LLC (Burrell) for 1,219,680 square feet (approximately
28 acres) of vacant property at Phoenix Goodyear Airport (GYR). Further request to
authorize the City Treasurer to accept all funds related to the ground lease.

Summary
Burrell is requesting to enter into a ground lease at GYR for the purpose of
constructing a cargo facility on the premises that may include cold storage, dry
storage, maintenance and repair facilities, or other approved aeronautical uses with an
investment of approximately $40 million.

Contract Term
The term shall be 35 years. The lease term will be preceded by a development term of
up to three years for Burrell to construct its improvements at a reduced rate of
approximately 15 percent of the rate for the lease term. Provisions of the contract may
include an option to extend the term up to 10 years, which may be exercised at the
sole discretion of the Director of Aviation Services.

Financial Impact
Rent for the first year of the lease term will be approximately $414,691 or $34,558 per
month at the rate of $0.34 per square foot. Rent will be adjusted annually commencing
one year after the rent commencement date and will be based on the Phoenix-Mesa-
Scottsdale Consumer Price Index. Total anticipated revenue from the lease, if the
extension option is exercised, will be approximately $18,661,095. The City of Phoenix
agrees to allow rent credits of up to $4 million to be applied during the lease term to
pay for infrastructure needed to make the premises functional and to facilitate future
development at GYR.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board, Business and Development Subcommittee
recommended approval of the item on Nov. 3, 2022 by a vote of 3-0.
The Phoenix Aviation Advisory Board recommended approval of this item on Nov. 17,


Page 110

2022 by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Phoenix Goodyear Airport: 1658 S. Litchfield Road, Goodyear, Ariz.

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




Page 111



Report

Professional Printing Services Contracts - RFQu 22-018 - Request for Award
(Ordinance S-49303)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into contracts with
Mark Printing & Graphics, LLC, Litho Tech Inc., and Capitol Litho Corporation for the
Aviation Department to provide professional printing services on an as-needed basis.
Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this
item. The total value of these contracts will not exceed $310,000.

Summary
The contracts will provide the Aviation Department a large variety of printed materials
to enhance communication efforts with customers, community, stakeholders, and staff.
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX) serves 43 million passengers annually,
and is responsible for providing information cards, brochures, postcards, flyers, cards,
invitations, newsletters, infographics, and booklets. These contracts will allow Aviation
to produce high quality print materials.

Procurement Information
A Request for Qualifications procurement was processed in accordance with
Administrative Regulation 3.10 to establish a Qualified Vendor List (QVL). The QVL
has three distinctive commercial print groups: Group A-High End, Sheet Fed, Large
Format; Group B-High End, Sheet Fed, Digital Option, Mid-Sized Format; Group C-
Short Run, Digital Format.

Four offerors submitted qualifications and three offers were deemed to be responsive
and responsible, one offer was deemed non-responsive. The Procurement Officer
evaluated those offers based on the following minimum qualifications:

· Offeror must have a minimum of five consecutive years of experience providing
professional printing services in the last eight years prior to this solicitation.
· Offeror must have an established branch office and/or operating facility located
within Maricopa County, Arizona.
· Offeror must assign a Project Manager with a minimum of three consecutive years
of experience within the last five years in providing professional printing services to



Page 112

commercial customers.

The following vendors met the minimum qualification criteria and are being
recommended award for placement on the QVL:

· Mark Printing & Graphics, LLC
· Litho Tech Inc.
· Capitol Litho Corporation

Contract Term
The contracts will begin on or about Jan. 15, 2023 for a five-year term with no options
to extend.

Financial Impact
The contracts' value will not exceed $310,000 for the term of the contracts.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department's budget.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport: 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 113



Report

Airline Common Use Paper II Contract - RFQu 23-021- Additional Vendor-
Request for Award to Ordinance S-49146 (Ordinance S-49319)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a contract with
Print-O-Tape to provide paper stock for airline common use paper for boarding passes
paper and standard baggage tags for the Aviation Department. Further request to
authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The total value of
all awarded contracts will not exceed $3,750,000.

Summary
This contract will provide an additional vendor to be added to the current Qualified
Vendor List (QVL) for boarding pass paper and baggage tags for Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport. The additional Request for Qualifications (RFQu) was issued to
expand the number of qualified vendor options to assist in mitigating potential supply
chain issues, specifically with respect to Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) bag
tags which utilize chip inlays.

Boarding pass paper and baggage tags are critical elements of airport security
operations. This contract will provide paper stock for airlines to print baggage tags and
boarding passes on common use terminal equipment, including printers and kiosks.
The handling of self-service baggage tags and boarding passes helps reduce the
overall processing time for passengers and speeds up the travel process. This item
has been reviewed and approved by the Information Technology Services Department.

Procurement Information
Request for Qualifications (RFQu) 23-021 Airline Common Use Paper II procurement
was processed in accordance with Administrative Regulation 3.10 to expand the
previously approved QVL for airline common use paper.

One offeror submitted qualifications and was deemed to be responsive and
responsible. The Procurement Officer evaluated the offer based on the following
minimum qualifications:

1. Offeror must have been in operation for a minimum of five consecutive years in the
past 10 years in the business of supplying various types of airline common use paper


Page 114

and tags.
2. Offeror must provide a designated Service Representative with a minimum of two
years experience in providing common use paper to airport customers.
3. Offeror must provide products that comply with International Air Travel Associations
(IATA) standards.

Print-O-Tape met the minimum qualification criteria and is being recommended for
award to the currently established QVL for Airline Common Use Paper.

Contract Term
The contract will begin on or about January 15, 2023, for a five-year term with no
options to extend.

Financial Impact
No additional funds are being requested. The total value for all contracts will not
exceed $3,750,000 for the five-year contract term.

Funding is available in the Aviation Department budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council unanimously approved Ordinance S-49146 on Nov. 16, 2022 for the
original Airline Common Use Paper for Boarding Passes and Baggage Tags QVL.

Location
Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport - 2485 E. Buckeye Road
Council District: 8

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




Page 115



Report

Traffic Signing Materials - COOP 22-087 - Amendment (Ordinance S-49301)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 156228 with Zumar Industries, Inc. to allow Aviation Department use of
contract for the purchase of traffic signing materials. Further request to authorize the
City Controller to disburse all funds related to this item. The additional expenditures
will not exceed $175,000.

Summary
In March 2022, City Council authorized the Street Transportation Department to enter
into this cooperative agreement with Zumar Industries, Inc. This request will allow the
and maintain the signage at Sky Harbor International Airport, Deer Valley Airport, and
Goodyear Airport.

Additional funds are needed to allow the Aviation Department's Sign Shop to purchase
the necessary materials required to fabricate the signage critical to maintaining the
Airports' traffic and way-finding signage infrastructure.

Contract Term
The contract term remains unchanged, ending on March 22, 2027.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $175,000 in additional funds, the revised value of the contract will
not exceed $1,175,000. Funds are available in the Aviation Department’s budget.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
• Traffic Signing Materials, Contract 156228 (Ordinance S-48406) on March 23, 2022.

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




Page 116



Report

Traffic Control Products and Solutions - RFP 2013-100 - Amendment (Ordinance
S-49297)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 146687 with Traffic and Parking Control Co., Inc. (TAPCO) to extend the
contract term and allow additional expenditures to provide traffic control products and
solutions for the Street Transportation, Aviation, and Phoenix Convention Center
departments. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds
related to this item. The additional expenditures will not exceed $2,200,000.

Summary
This contract will provide access to solar power dynamic signs, speed feedback signs,
and other traffic products and equipment, on an as-needed basis. These items will
help supplement the existing speed hump, traffic calming, signal, and safety programs
in the City. In addition, aiding efforts to standardize equipment in the field in order to
reduce maintenance cost and equipment down time. The Street Transportation,
Aviation, and Phoenix Convention Center departments' Traffic Signal Shops require
the use of roadway, traffic, and safety products to maintain safe public roadways.

Contract Term
Upon approval the contract will be extended through Jan. 31, 2024.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $2.2 million in additional funds, the revised aggregate value of the
contract will not exceed $8,340,000. Funds are available in the Street Transportation,
Aviation, and Phoenix Convention Center departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Action
The City Council previously reviewed this request:
Traffic Control Products and Solutions Contract 146687 (Ordinance S-44182) on Jan.
10, 2018
Traffic Control Products and Solutions Contract 146687 (Ordinance S-45378) on Feb.
20, 2019




Page 117


Responsible Department
This item is submitted by Deputy City Managers Mario Paniagua and Inger Erickson,
and the Street Transportation, Aviation, and Phoenix Convention Center departments.




Page 118



Report

Additional Expenditures for Forklifts (Ordinance S-49300)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Contract 154171 with Leavitt Machinery USA, Inc. dba Reliable Forklift Sales and
Contract 154173 with Handling Systems dba Raymond West Intralogistics Solution in
an amount up to $1,900,000 for purchase of various types of forklifts used for
operations. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related
to this item. The revised value of the contract will not exceed $3,150,000.

Summary
These contracts are used to purchase various types of forklifts for City departments
and to replace forklifts that exceed the 15-year life cycle throughout the contract. The
equipment is used to safely move and lift items from one location to another within a
warehouse, maintenance yard, or other facilities. Forklifts maintain the safety of the
employees and prevent damage to materials being moved. The purpose of this
request is to provide additional funding for unforeseen expenditures to make these
forklift purchases and continue the replacements needed for, but not limited to: Public
Works, Police, Fire, Parks and Recreation, Neighborhood Services, Human Resources
and the City Clerk departments. The additional funding is necessary as a result of
significant inflation and an increase in the number of units to be replaced.

Contract Term
The contract term is May 1, 2021, for one initial year, with four additional option years
to be exercised in increments of up to one year, for a total contract term of five years.

Financial Impact
Upon approval of $1,900,000 in additional funds, the revised value of the contracts will
not exceed $3,150,000. Funds are available in various departments' budgets.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council previously approved:
· Contract 154171 and Contract 154173 (Ordinance S-47474) on April 21, 2021.




Page 119

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




Page 120



Report

Water Conservation Plumbing Fixture Replacement Program (Ordinance S-
49293)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to create and fund eight
additional Public Works Department positions, and to expand the fleet by eight
additional vehicles, to staff the Plumbing Fixture Replacement Program to retrofit
plumbing fixtures throughout City facilities to improve water efficiency.

Summary
desert city and recognizing the Colorado River is in decline due to overallocation and
widespread drought conditions, the City of Phoenix must reduce water use in City
operations and within City facilities to lead by example. This initiative will invest in the
replacement of outdated, high water use plumbing fixtures with new water efficient
plumbing fixtures within City facilities such as toilets, faucets, and shower heads.

The Water Services Department has completed water audits of most City facilities.
Analysis of audit data demonstrates that over 90 percent of toilets are outdated, do not
meet current standards, and use significantly more water than modern fixtures due to
end-of-life condition and leaks. Replacing older inefficient plumbing fixtures in General
Fund City facilities will save the City billions of gallons of water annually and
demonstrate that Phoenix is a leader in water resource stewardship.

Staff have analyzed the data from the water audits and developed a staffing and
implementation plan for the proposed Plumbing Fixture Replacement Program to
exchange approximately 2,500 toilets, 1,000 urinals, 2,500 faucets, and 500 shower
heads in City facilities. Upon program approval, staff intends to complete the program
within approximately 18 months.

In 2022, the Phoenix City Council approved an agreement in which the City created
system conservation using a portion of its Colorado River allocation that was left in
Lake Mead to the conservation efforts. In return for forbearing that portion of the
allocation, the City received compensation that the Council determined would be for
water conservation projects. Staff proposes to use $2 million of those funds for this
program, which will achieve substantial water use reduction.


Page 121


Financial Impact
The estimated cost for the eight additional positions is approximately $1.4 million for
the duration of the program. Water Services has allocated $2 million for the program
and $1.4 million from Public Works in Fiscal Year 2023-24 using General Fund
Resources, for a total of $3.4 million to provide funding to the program, including the
positions.

Funding is available in the Water Services and Public Works Departments’ budgets.
Upon completion of the program, the ongoing costs for the additional positions will be
paid with client departments’ funds based on work orders.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The City Council approved Agreement 156216 (Ordinance S-48254) on Jan. 5, 2022;
The City Council amended Ordinance S-48254 on July 1, 2022.

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




Page 122



Report

Water Conserving Plumbing Parts and Fixtures Agreement (Ordinance S-49294)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into an agreement
with Browns Partsmaster, Inc. for supply of water conserving plumbing parts and
fixtures. Further request to authorize the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item. The total value of the agreement will not exceed $2 million.

Summary
The Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining the plumbing fixtures in
City-owned facilities. As a desert city and recognizing the Colorado River is in decline
due to overallocation and widespread drought conditions, the City must reduce its
water usage in city operations and within city facilities. As part of the City's water
saving initiative, this agreement will allow Public Works to purchase water efficient
plumbing fixtures to replace current high water usage fixtures. The fixtures purchased
under the agreement include flushometers, faucets, shower heads, and other water
saving components, and will be Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved
WaterSense high efficiency fixtures. The replacement of these fixtures throughout City-
owned facilities is expected to reduce water consumption citywide.

Procurement Information
Invitation for Bid 23-FMD-026 was conducted in accordance with Administrative
Regulation 3.10. Five offers were received by the Public Works Department
Procurement Services Division on Sept. 28, 2022. The offers were evaluated based on
price, responsiveness to all specifications, terms and conditions, and responsibility to
provide the required products. The offer submitted by Browns Partsmaster, Inc. was
deemed fair and reasonable.

Browns Partsmaster, Inc.: $1,982,705.25 bid total

Contract Term
The one-year term of the agreement will begin on or about Jan. 1, 2023. The
agreement will include four one-year options to extend the term, for a total agreement
term of up to five years if all options are exercised.




Page 123

Financial Impact
The value of the agreement, including all option years, is $2 million, including all
applicable taxes.

Funding is available in the Water Revenue Fund and Public Works Department’s
budget.

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




Page 124



Report

91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant Solids Rehabilitation Phase I -
Construction Manager at Risk Construction Services Amendment - WS90100111
(Ordinance S-49302)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute an amendment to
Agreement 153445 with PCL Construction, Inc. to provide additional Construction
Manager at Risk Construction Services, for the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment
Plant, Solids Rehabilitation Phase I project. Further request to authorize execution of
amendments to the agreement as necessary within the Council-approved expenditure
authority as provided below, and for the City Controller to disburse all funds related to
this item.

Summary
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate, replace, and make improvements to the
solids thickening, solids digestion, and solids dewatering equipment, piping,
instrumentation, and processes at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP).

This amendment is necessary to extend the contract term for construction services.
This amendment will provide additional time to the agreement.

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

Contract Term
The amendment will extend the contract's term by five years, to on or about Jan. 6,
2028. Work scope identified and incorporated into the agreement prior to the end of
the term, may be agreed to by the parties.

Financial Impact
No additional fee for services is needed, the amendment is to extend contract time
only.

Concurrence/Previous Council Action
The SROG advisors:


Page 125

· Authorized the project on June 10, 2020.

The City Council approved:
· Engineering Services Agreement 152491 (Ordinance S-46821) on July 1, 2020;
· CMAR Preconstruction Services Agreement 152492 (Ordinance S-46823) on July
1, 2020; and
· CMAR Construction Services Agreement 153445 (Ordinance S-47146) on Dec. 2,
2020.

Location
91st Avenue WWTP
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 126



Report

Final Plat - 83rd Thomas Townhomes - PLAT 210054 - Southeast Corner of 83rd
Avenue and Thomas Road

Plat: 210054
Project: 20-3485
Name of Plat: 83rd Thomas Townhomes
Owner: FIG Timber Woods, LLC and Columbia Group, LTD
Engineer: Colin D. Harvey, RLS
Request: A Three-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 11, 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 83rd Avenue and Thomas Road
Council District: 7

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




Page 127



Report

Final Plat - 99th Avenue Logistics - PLAT 210107 - South of Buckeye Road and
East of 99th Avenue

Plat: 210107
Project: 19-255
Name of Plat: 99th Avenue Logistics
Owner: South 99th Avenue LP, West Buckeye RD, LP
Engineer: James A. Brucci, RLS
Request: A Three-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Dec. 20, 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 Buckeye Road and east of 99th Avenue
Council District: 7

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




Page 128



Report

Final Plat - Paul Davis Restoration - PLAT 220059 - North of Southern Avenue
and East of 36th Street

Plat: 220059
Project: 21-2316
Name of Plat: Paul Davis Restoration
Owner: CTC Properties, LLC
Engineer: Geoffrey K. Brimhall, RLS
Request: A One-Lot Commercial Plat
Reviewed by Staff: Nov. 23, 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 north of Southern Avenue and east of 36th Street
Council District: 8

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




Page 129



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-4-22-1 -
Northeast Corner of 29th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue (Ordinance G-7067)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
PSC (Planned Shopping Center) and C-2 (Intermediate Commercial) to C-2
(Intermediate Commercial) to allow a shopping center with expanded uses permitted in
C-2.

Summary
Current Zoning: PSC and C-2
Proposed Zoning: C-2
Acreage: 1.09 acres
Proposed Use: Shopping center with expanded uses permitted in C-2

Owner: GM Metro, LLC and GM ELPED, LLC
Applicant: William F. Allison, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: William F. Allison, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The North Mountain Village Planning Committee heard this case on July
20, 2022, and continued the case to the Aug. 17, 2022, meeting. The Aug. 17, 2022,
and Oct. 19, 2022, meetings were canceled. The North Mountain Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Nov. 16, 2022, and recommended approval, per the
staff recommendation (Addendum A), by a vote of 11-0.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 1, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the North Mountain Village Planning Committee
recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Northeast corner of 29th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue
Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 9100 N. Black Canyon Highway




Page 130

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




Page 131
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-4-22-1) FROM PSC (PLANNING SHOPPING
CENTER DISTRICT) AND C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT) TO C-2 (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.09-acre property located approximately at

the northeast corner of 29th Avenue and Dunlap Avenue in a portion of Section 26,

Township 3 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby

changed from 0.82-acres of “PSC” (Planned Shopping Center District) and 0.27-acres

of “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial District), to “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial).

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 132
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. Prior to the issuance of permits for tenant improvements, the developer shall
provide three Inverted-U bicycle racks near the primary entrances to each
building exceeding 5,000 square feet in floor area. These bicycle racks shall be
shaded to 50 percent and installed per the requirements of Section 1307(H) of
the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

2. A pedestrian path, constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored
concrete, or another material, other than those used to pave the parking
surfaces and drive aisles, shall be provided across the drive aisle located on
the western edge of the building connecting the building with the parking area
to the west, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

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

4. 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.

5. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of January,

2023.




Page 133
________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 134
EXHIBIT A

LOT 4, OF METRO MARKETPLACE, RECORDED IN BOOK 1190 OF MAPS,
PAGE 39, RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA, LOCATED IN THE
SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 2
EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASE AND MERIDIAN, MARICOPA
COUNTY, ARIZONA, BEING MORE PAR TICULARL Y DESCRIBED AS
FOLLOWS:

COMMENCING AT A CITY OF PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 FROM WHICH A CITY OF
PHOENIX BRASS CAP IN HANDHOLE MARKING THE SOUTH QUARTER
CORNER OF SAID SECTION 26 BEARS NORTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 04
SECONDS WEST 2639.14 FEET, SAID DESCRIBED LINE BEING THE BASIS OF
BEARINGS OF THIS
DESCRIPTION;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 56 MINUTES 04 SECONDS WEST 513.80
FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE
SOUTHERL Y PROLONGATION OF THE WEST LINE OF LOT 5B, METRO
MARKETPLACE 2, BOOK 1263 OF MAPS, PAGE 33, RECORDS OF
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;

THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 09 SECONDS EAST 240.62
FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT
5B;

THENCE CON TINUING NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 09 SECONDS
EAST 165.63 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;

THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 59 MINUTES 05 SECONDS WEST 346.67
FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID LOT 4; THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 01
SECONDS EAST 135.28 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO
THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE BEGINNING OF A
NON TANGENT CURVE CONCA VE SOUTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 137.00 FEET AND A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 85
DEGREES 10 MINUTES 37 SECONDS EAST 24.87 FEET;

THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID LOT 4 AND THE
ARC OF SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10 DEGREES 24
MINUTES 48 SECONDS, AN ARC LENGTH OF 24.90 FEET;

THENCE SOUTH 89 DEGREES 36 MINUTES 59 SECONDS EAST 321.91 FEET
ALONG SAID NORTH LINE TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 4;

THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 23 MINUTES 09 SECONDS WEST 135.31
FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 4 TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.



Page 135
Page 136



Report

Amend City Code - Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-44-22-1 (Deer
Valley Medical Center PUD) - Southeast Corner of 27th Avenue and the Loop 101
Freeway (Ordinance G-7066)

Request to amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, Section 601, the Zoning Map of the
C-2 (Intermediate Commercial), C-2 HR (Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise and
High Density District), C-2 SP (Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit), C-2 HR SP
(Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit) and
PCD (Approved C-2 PCD) (Planned Community District, Approved Intermediate
Commercial, Planned Community District) to PUD (Planned Unit Development) to
allow a medical center.

Summary
Current Zoning: C-2 (6.40 acres), C-2 HR (1.76 acres), C-2 SP (0.06 acres), C-2 HR
SP (9.94 acres), PCD (Approved C-2 PCD) (0.06 acres)
Proposed Zoning: PUD
Acreage: 18.22 acres
Proposal: Medical Center

Owner: HonorHealth
Applicant: Wendy Riddell, Berry Riddell, LLC
Representative: Mark Tiscornia, Cuningham

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Info Only: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept.
8, 2022, for information only.
VPC Action: The Deer Valley Village Planning Committee was scheduled to hear this
case on Nov. 10, 2022, but did not provide a recommendation due to a lack of quorum.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Dec. 1, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation, by a vote of 9-0.

Location
Southeast corner of 27th Avenue and the Loop 101 Freeway



Page 137

Council District: 1
Parcel Address: 19829 and 19841 N. 27th Ave.

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




Page 138
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-44-22-1) FROM C-2 (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT), C-2 HR (INTERMEDIATE
COMMERCIAL, HIGH-RISE AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT), C-2
SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, SPECIAL PERMIT
DISTRICT), C-2 HR SP (INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, HIGH-
RISE AND HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT, SPECIAL PERMIT), PCD
(APPROVED C-2 PCD) (PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT,
APPROVED INTERMEDIATE COMMERCIAL, PLANNED
COMMUNITY DISTRICT) TO PUD (PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of an 18.22-acre site located at the southeast

corner of 27th Avenue and the Loop 101 Freeway in a portion of Section 25, Township

4 North, Range 2 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed

from 6.40 acres of “C-2” (Intermediate Commercial District), 1.76 acres of “C-2 HR”

(Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise and High Density District), 0.06 acres of “C-2 SP”

(Intermediate Commercial, Special Permit District), 9.94 acres of “C-2 HR SP”




Page 139
(Intermediate Commercial, High-Rise and High Density District, Special Permit), and

0.06 acres of PCD (Approved C-2 PCD) (Planned Community District, Approved

Intermediate Commercial, Planned Community 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:

1. An updated Development Narrative for the Deer Valley Medical Center PUD
reflecting the changes approved through this request shall be submitted to the
Planning and Development Department within 30 days of City Council approval
of this request. The updated Development Narrative shall be consistent with the
Development Narrative date stamped October 21, 2022, as modified by the
following stipulations:

a. Front cover: Revise the submittal date information on the bottom to add
the following: Hearing draft submittal: October 21, 2022; City Council
adopted: [Add adoption date]; remove 3rd submittal line.

b. Page 3, Section C. List of Uses, Accessory Uses:
(1) Add the following conditions under Mobile Vending:
 Subject to all condition of Section 624.D.87.a through m of the
Zoning Ordinance.
 The mobile vending use shall occur no more than one day per
week for five mobile vending units or no more than two days per
week for less than five mobile vending units.
 The use is limited to the hours of 7am to 10pm.
(2) Remove the following condition under Mobile Vending:
 All parking shall be contained on-site.




Page 140
2. The applicant shall submit a Traffic Impact Study/Statement to the City for this
development. The developer shall be responsible for cost and construction of all
mitigation identified through the analysis. No preliminary approval of plans shall
be granted until the study is reviewed and approved by the Street Transportation
Department.

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

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

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. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition
207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the Maricopa
County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in the rezoning
application file for record.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of January,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR




Page 141
ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:


_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 142
EXHIBIT A

Being a portion of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 25, Township 4 North, Range 2 East,
Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, Maricopa County, Arizona more particularly
described as:

Lot 1 of the Final Plat for “John C. Lincoln Deer Valley” as recorded in Book 539, Page
29 of the Maricopa County Recorder on August 1, 2000.




Page 143
Page 144



Report

Amend City Code - Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1240 (Ordinance G-7065)

Request to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to amend Section 601 of the
Phoenix Zoning Ordinance by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1240. This
amendment reflects that the property owner has met all of the rezoning conditions
previously approved by City Council with a portion of Z-104-75 and the entitlements
are fully vested.

Summary
To rezone the southwest corner of 23rd Avenue and Grandview Road
Application No.: Z-104-75
Zoning: IND. PK. PCD (13.48 acres) and S-1 PCD (2.58 acres)
Owner: Orsett and Orsett Northgate 2501, LLC
Acreage: 16.06

Location
Southwest corner of 23rd Avenue and Grandview Road
Address: 2401 and 2501 W. Grandview Road
Council District: 3

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




Page 145
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY ADOPTING OFFICIAL
SUPPLEMENTARY ZONING MAP 1240.

____________


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

follows:

SECTION 1. That Section 601 of the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance is

hereby amended by adopting Official Supplementary Zoning Map 1240, which

accompanies and is annexed to this ordinance and declared a part hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of January,

2023.



_____________________________________
MAYOR




ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk




Page 146
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney



By:_____________________________
_____________________________


REVIEWED BY:



____________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager




PL:LF22-1929:12-14-2022




Page 147
Page 148



Report

Public Hearing and Ordinance Adoption - Rezoning Application Z-43-22-2 -
Southeast Corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard (Ordinance G-7068)

Request to hold a public hearing and amend the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance,
section 601, the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix, and consider adopting
Rezoning Application Z-43-22-2 to rezone the site from RE-43 (One-Family
Residence) to R-O (Residential Office) to allow a residential office.

Summary
Current Zoning: RE-43
Proposed Zoning: R-O
Acreage: 1.37
Proposed Use: Residential office

Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.
VPC Action: The Paradise Village Planning Committee heard this case on Sept. 12,
2022, and continued the case, by a vote of 15-0. The Paradise Village Planning
Committee heard this case on Oct. 3, 2022, and continued the case, by a vote of 15
-0. The Paradise Valley Planning Committee heard this case on Nov. 7, 2022, and
recommended approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A), with
additional stipulations, by a vote of 9-5.
PC Action: The Planning Commission heard this case on Oct. 6, 2022, and
continued the case to the Dec. 1, 2022, by a vote of 9-0. The Planning Commission
heard this case on Dec. 1, 2022, and recommended approval per the staff memo,
dated Dec. 1, 2022, with an additional stipulation, by a vote of 8-1.
The Planning Commission recommendation was appealed by a community member
on Dec 7, 2022, and a petition for a three-quarter vote was submitted on Dec. 8,
2022. A three-quarter vote is not required.




Page 149

Location
Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
Council District: 2
Parcel Address: 10441 N. 57th St.

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




Page 150
ATTACHMENT A

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




ORDINANCE G-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING DISTRICT MAP
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 601 OF THE CITY OF
PHOENIX ZONING ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING
DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PARCEL DESCRIBED
HEREIN (CASE Z-43-22-2) FROM RE-43 (ONE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE DISTRICT) TO R-O (RESIDENTIAL OFFICE
DISTRICT).

____________



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

follows:

SECTION 1. The zoning of a 1.37-acre property located at the southeast

corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard in a portion of Section 28, Township 3 North,

Range 4 East, as described more specifically in Exhibit “A,” is hereby changed from

“RE-43” (One-Family Residence District), to “R-O” (Residential Office District).

SECTION 2. The Planning and Development Director is instructed to

modify the Zoning Map of the City of Phoenix to reflect this use district classification

change as shown in Exhibit “B.”

SECTION 3. Due to the site’s specific physical conditions and the use

district applied for by the applicant, this rezoning is subject to the following stipulations,




Page 151
violation of which shall be treated in the same manner as a violation of the City of

Phoenix Zoning Ordinance:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped November 2, 2022 and elevations date stamped November 2, 2022,
with specific regard to the inclusion of metal fascia, wood finish, and stone
veneer walls or split face block, as modified by the following stipulations and
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. The detached garage structure shall not exceed 4,615 square feet in size.

3. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.

4. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south
property line.

5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east
property line and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50
percent 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25 percent 4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

9. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area
located between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and
replenish it to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live




Page 152
coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

10. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

11. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

12. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-foot-
wide sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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

15. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
developer shall immediately cease all ground-disturbing activities within a 33-
foot radius of the discovery, notify the City Archaeologist, and allow time for the
Archaeology Office to properly assess the materials.

16. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
Proposition 207 waiver of claims form. The waiver shall be recorded with the
Maricopa County Recorder's Office and delivered to the City to be included in
the rezoning application file for record.

17. A minimum 30-foot building setback shall be provided along the south and east
property lines.

18. The elevations shall contain design elements of residential character, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 153
19. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the developer shall apply for the on-
street parking zones program in order to install no parking signs along 57th
Street adjacent to the subject site.

20. The detached garage shall have a maximum of four parking spaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

21. The property shall not be subdivided or split.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or

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

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

of the remaining portions hereof.

PASSED by the Council of the City of Phoenix this 4th day of January,

2023.




________________________________
MAYOR


ATTEST:


_________________________
Denise Archibald, City Clerk


APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Julie M. Kriegh, City Attorney


By:
_________________________
_________________________


REVIEWED BY:




Page 154
_________________________
Jeffrey Barton, City Manager



Exhibits:
A – Legal Description (1 Page)
B – Ordinance Location Map (1 Page)




Page 155
EXHIBIT A
A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 3
NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE GILA AND SALT RIVER BASELINE AND
MERIDIAN, MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 28, FROM
WHICH THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION BEARS SOUTH 87
DEGREES 45 MINUTES 55 SECONDS EAST, 2620.52 FEET:
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 55
SECONDS EAST, 660.17 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION OF 57TH STREET AND
SHEA BOULEVARD AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 87 DEGREES 45 MINUTES 55
SECONDS EAST, 324.14 FEET;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 02 DEGREES 14 MINUTES 05
SECOND WEST, 40.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY
OF SHEA BOULEVARD AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 13, COUNTRY
CLUB ACRES, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 70 AND PAGE 21 OF THE OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA;
THENCE ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID LOT 13 SOUTH 00 DEGREES 01
MINUTES 20 SECONDS WEST,
148.52 FEET TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE SAID EAST LINE;
THENCE DEPARTING SAID EAST LINE NORTH 87 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 57
SECONDS WEST, 297.56 FEET, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT
13 AND EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF 57TH STREET;
THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 58 MINUTES 49 SECONDS WEST, 25.00 FEET TO
THE CENTERLINE OF 57TH STREET;
THENCE NORTH 00 DEGREES 01 MINUTES 11 SECONDS EAST, 189.61
FEET, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
AREA OF DESCRIBED PARCEL BEING, 60,836.847 SQUARE FEET




Page 156
Page 157
Attachment B




Staff Report Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

Paradise Valley Village Planning September 12, 2022
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: October 6, 2022
Request From: RE-43 (One-Family Residence District)
(1.37 acres)
Request To: R-O (Restricted Commercial District)
(1.37 acres)
Proposed Use: Residential Office
Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and
Shea Boulevard

Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings
Applicant/Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations


General Plan Conformity
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units per
General Plan Land Use Map Designation
acre

57th Street Local 25-feet east half street

Street Map Classification
Shea Major
40-feet south half street
Boulevard Arterial




Page 158
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

STRENGTHEN OUR LOCAL ECONOMY CORE VALUE; LOCAL & SMALL
BUSINESS, LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Facilitate adaptive reuse of older,
underutilized properties to create mechanisms for new local and small
businesses to operate, thrive and grow.

The residential office use will encourage the growth of a local business that is
appropriately located along a major arterial street.

CONNECT PEOPLE AND PLACES CORE VALUES; OPPORTUNITY SITES;
LAND USE PRINCIPLE: Support reasonable levels of increased intensity,
respectful of local conditions and surrounding neighborhoods.

The proposed development, as stipulated, is respectful of local conditions by
including enhanced landscape standards that would be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood.

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 development, as stipulated, provides enhanced levels of trees and shade which
will reduce the urban heat island effect while also improving thermal comfort.



Applicable Plans, Overlays, and Initiatives
Tree and Shade Master Plan: Background Item No. 5.

Complete Streets Guidelines: Background Item No. 6.

Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan: Background Item No. 7.

Zero Waste PHX: Background Item No. 8.


Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning
Land Use Zoning
On Site Vacant RE-43
North (across Shea
Single-Family Residential RE-35
Boulevard)
South Single-Family Residential RE-43
West (across 57th Street) Single-Family Residential RE-43
East Vacant RE-43




Page 159
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022


R-O
(Residential Office District)
Standards Requirements Proposed
Minimum Building Setbacks
Front (west adjacent to 20 feet 20 feet – Met
57th Street)
Side (north adjacent to 10 feet 10 feet – Met
Shea Boulevard
Side (south) 10 feet 10 feet – Met
Rear (east) 25 feet 25 feet – Met
Minimum Landscape Setbacks
Front (west adjacent to 20 feet – Met
57th Street)
Side (north adjacent to Subject to Site Planning 5 feet – Met
Shea Boulevard Division approval
Side (south) 5 feet – Met

Rear (east) 10 feet – Met

Lot Coverage 30%, excluding carports 30% – Met
10%, for carports
Building Height 15 feet, plus 1 foot in height 23 feet – Met
per 1 foot additional setback
to a maximum height of 25
feet
Parking 1 per 300 square feet net 26 parking space – Met
floor area (23 spaces)




Page 160
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

Background/Issues/Analysis

SUBJECT SITE
1. This request is to rezone 1.37 acres located at the southeast corner of 57th
Street and Shea Boulevard from RE-43 (One-Family Residence District) to R-O
(Restricted Commercial District) to allow a residential office.

SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING
2. The subject site is currently
vacant and existing single-family
residential developments are
located to the west and south,
that are zoned RE-43 (One-
Family Residence District). North
across Shea Boulevard are
single-family homes zoned RE-
35 (Single-Family Residence
District). To the east is a vacant
property zoned RE-43 (One-
Family Residence District).

Site Aerial
Source: Planning and Development Department
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION
3. The General Plan Land Use Map
designation for the subject site is
Residential 1 to 2 dwelling units
per acre. The same designation
exists on all sides of the site and
extends to all four directions. The
proposal is not consistent with
the Residential 1 to 2 dwelling
units per acre designation.
However, as the site is under 10
acres, a General Plan
Amendment is not required.

General Plan Land Use Map
Source: Planning and Development Department

PROPOSAL
4. Site Plan
The proposed site plan depicts a one-story office building 6,650 square feet in
size and 17 feet in height oriented towards 57th Street. A detached garage of
4,760 square feet in size and 23 feet in height is depicted on the southeast




Page 161
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

corner of the site. The conceptual site plan indicates vehicular access along
Shea Boulevard with parking areas located along the north and central portion
of the subject site. Staff is recommending general conformance to the site plan,
per Stipulation No. 1, to ensure that the site develops as proposed. Staff is
recommending a minimum 15-foot building setback along the south property
line as an appropriate buffer to the adjacent residential uses. This is addressed
in Stipulation No. 3.




Conceptual Site Plan
Source: Drewett Works Architecture

Elevations
The conceptual building elevations depict various architectural features, colors,
and textures. To ensure the building elevations contain the depicted
architectural embellishments, staff recommends Stipulation No. 1 which would
require general conformance with specific regard to metal fascia, wood finish,
stone veneer walls or split face block. Further, Stipulation No. 2 limits the
building height to 23 feet to ensure a compatible development with the
surrounding residential area.




Conceptual Elevation Renderings
Source: Drewett Works Architecture




Page 162
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

STUDIES AND POLICIES

5. Tree and Shade Master Plan
The Tree and Shade Master Plan encourages treating the urban forest as
infrastructure to ensure the trees are an integral part of the City’s planning and
development process. Sidewalks on the street frontages should be detached
from the curbs to allow trees to be planted on both sides of the sidewalk to
provide thermal comfort for pedestrians and to reduce the urban heat island
effect. Staff is recommending several stipulations designed to provide trees and
enhance shade within the development as follows:

x A minimum 10-foot landscape setback east of the subject site with
minimum two-inch caliper trees (Stipulation No. 4);

x Fifty percent two-inch caliper and 50 percent three-inch caliper trees
within the north and south landscape setback (Stipulation Nos. 5 and 6);

x Fifty percent two-inch caliper, 25 percent three-inch caliper trees, and 25
percent four-inch caliper trees within the front yard setback along 57th
Street (Stipulation No. 7);

x Detached sidewalks along all streets with minimum two-inch caliper
single trunk shade trees and groundcovers with a maximum height of 24
inches (Stipulation No. 8);

x Uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum
two-inch caliper drought-tolerant shade trees to achieve a minimum of 25
percent shade (Stipulation No. 10).

6. Complete Streets Guidelines
In 2014, the City of Phoenix City Council adopted the Complete Streets Guiding
Principles. The principles are intended to promote improvements that provide an
accessible, safe, connected transportation system to include all modes, such as
bicycles, pedestrians, transit, and vehicles. To provide a safe pedestrian
environment staff is recommending enhanced pavement treatment for on-site
pedestrian walkways that cross vehicular drive aisles. This is addressed in
Stipulation No. 9. The development will help enhance the immediate street
frontage by replenishing the landscape strip from the back of curb to the
sidewalk adjacent to Shea Boulevard. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 8. A
dedication is required along Shea Boulevard and any street improvements will
be done to City of Phoenix and ADA standards. These are addressed in
Stipulations Nos. 12 and 13.

7. Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Phoenix adopted the Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan in 2014 to



Page 163
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

guide the development of its Bikeway System and supportive infrastructure. The
Comprehensive Bicycle Master Plan supports options for both short- and long-
term bicycle parking as a means of promoting bicyclist traffic to a variety of
destinations. As stipulated, the project will provide bicycle parking spaces,
installed per the requirements in the city’s Walkable Urban (WU) Code. This is
addressed in Stipulation No. 11.

8. 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. The provision of recycling
containers was not addressed in the applicant’s submittals.

COMMUNITY INPUT SUMMARY
9. As of the writing of this report, staff has received 11 letters of opposition to this
rezoning application. The stated concerns are the loss of residential character in
the area, the negative effects on property values, and the increase in traffic.

INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMENTS
10. The Fire Department indicated there are no problems anticipated with the case
and that the site and/or buildings shall comply with the International Fire Code
with Phoenix Amendments. Further, the Department commented that they do
not know the water supply at this site and noted that fire flow requirements may
present a challenge for this site.

11. The Street Transportation Department has indicated that the developer will be
required to make dedications and that all street improvements shall be provided
and meet ADA standards. Furthermore, the Street Transportation Department
has indicated that the landscape strip between the back of the curb and
sidewalk shall be replenished. These conditions are addressed in Stipulation
Nos. 8 and 12 through 13.

OTHER
12. The site has not been identified as being archeologically sensitive. However, in
the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, all
ground disturbing activities must cease within a 33-foot radius of the discovery
and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office must be notified immediately and
allowed time to properly assess the materials. This is addressed in Stipulation
No. 14.

13. Staff has not received a completed form for the Waiver of Claims for Diminution
in Value of Property under Proposition 207 (A.R.S. 12-1131 et seq.), as required
by the rezoning application process. Therefore, a stipulation has been added to




Page 164
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

require the form be completed and submitted prior to preliminary site plan
approval. This is addressed in Stipulation No. 15.

14. Development and use of the site is subject to all applicable codes and
ordinances. Zoning approval does not negate other ordinance requirements
such as obtaining a use permit to conduct the proposed outdoor use in this
zoning district. Other formal actions such as, but not limited to, zoning
adjustments and abandonments, may be required.

Findings

1. The proposal will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial
street and an established single-family neighborhood.

2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for a new small business to locate in
the Paradise Valley Village and serve the surrounding neighborhood.

3. The proposal will develop vacant land and as stipulated will incorporate design
and landscape features that are compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Stipulations

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 19, 2022 and elevations date stamped August 19, 2022, with
specific regard to the inclusion of metal fascia, wood finish, and stone veneer
walls or split face block, as modified by the following stipulations and approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

2. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.

3. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south property
line.

4. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east property
line and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

5. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 165
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022


7. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50
percent 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25 percent 4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area
located between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and
replenish it to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage
at maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

9. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be
dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity,
as approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-foot-wide
sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as approved by the
Planning and Development Department.

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




Page 166
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
September 12, 2022

Development Department. All improvements shall comply with all ADA
accessibility standards.

14. 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.

15. 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.

Writer
Nayeli Sanchez Luna
September 12, 2022

Team Leader
Racelle Escolar

Exhibits
Zoning sketch map
Aerial sketch map
Conceptual Site Plan date stamped August 19, 2022
Conceptual Landscape Plan date stamped August 23, 2022
Conceptual Elevations date stamped August 19, 2022
Conceptual Elevation Renderings date stamped August 23, 2022 (12 pages)
Community Correspondence (11 pages)




Page 167
RE-35
RH *

RE-35
Z-370-84




RE-35

SH EA BLVD


56TH ST
RE-43
Z-30-98




57TH ST
RE-43
58TH ST
CO
CH
ISE
PAD RD
RE-35
DEER VALLEY DR


SR 101
Z-43-22
Miles UNION HILLS DR




A W P EAK PKW Y (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045 GREENWAY RD

PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACT US RD




SCOTT SDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU


16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S

TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Jason Morris, Withey Morris PLC
FROM:
RE-43 ( 1.37 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
DATE:
5/27/2022
Z-43-22 RE VISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.37 Acres QS 28-41 K-11 TO: R-O ( 1.37 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
RE-43 1 N/A
R-O 1 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 168
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL G IS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-43-22.mxd
RE-35
RH *

RE-35
Z-370-84




RE-35

SH EA BLVD


56TH ST
RE-43
Z-30-98




57TH ST
RE-43
58TH ST
CO
CH
ISE
PAD RD
RE-35
DEER VALLEY DR


SR 101
Z-43-22
Miles UNION HILLS DR




A W P EAK PKW Y (SR 51)
BELL RD
0.045 0.0225 0 0.045 GREENWAY RD

PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE THUNDERBIRD RD

CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT: 2 CACT US RD




SCOTT SDALE RD
SHEA BLVD
QU


16TH ST 56TH ST 64TH ST
24TH ST S

TATUM BLVD
32ND ST
40TH ST




APPLICANT'S NAME: REQUESTED CHANGE:
Jason Morris, Withey Morris PLC
FROM:
RE-43 ( 1.37 a.c.)
APPLICATION NO.
DATE:
5/27/2022
Z-43-22 RE VISION DATES:



GROSS AREA INCLUDING 1/2 STREET
AND ALLEY DEDICATION IS APPROX.
AERIAL PHOTO & ZONING MAP
QUARTER SEC. NO.
1.37 Acres QS 28-41 K-11 TO: R-O ( 1.37 a.c.)
MULTIPLES PERMITTED CONVENTIONAL OPTION * UNITS P.R.D. OPTION
RE-43 1 N/A
R-O 1 N/A

* Maximum Units Allowed with P.R.D. Bonus Page 169
Document Path: S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL G IS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\sketch_maps\2022\Z-43-22.mxd
%)œ)‰‰ƐœkU„ƐxxƐ
BF‰)‰Ž)
7 1 4 4 E. S T E T S O N D R . , SU I TE 2 0 4
6+($%/9' :%
S C O T T S D A L E , A Z 8 5 2 5 1
P 855-373-9388 // F 8 5 5 - 3 7 3 - 9 3 8 8
P L A N S @ D R E W E T T W O R K S . COM



ŐǑċċŐƐcƐĂƆ‰BƐ„‰
kœc)
17+67+2/',1*6//&
17+6768,7(


{

%F„)Ɛš
XX)¥ØƐ
¬
3+2(1,;$=86$

 
5:
6+($%/9' (%
%)„F:cƐ
(;52//&85% 352326(''5,9(:$<
(175<$1'(;,7  '5(:(77:25.6 íĂƞĂƗ
(67(7621'568,7(
6&2776'$/($=
 
'5,9($,6/(
33+21(  


  {kI)‰Ɛc

‰Fš)
  6:
(;,67,1*),5(+<'5$17

6:(6017 2:1(5&/,(17 352326('352-(&7&216,6762)6725<2)),&(
3$5.,1*
%8,/',1*9%&216758&7,217<3(
 
  3523(57</,1(
/66      
7+(,17(17,6723529,'($+,*+(1'
%/'*6(7%$&.
              
2)),&($1'*$5$*(6+2:5220:,7+/8;85<
62/,':$67(
(1&/2685(  
63$&(6$1'0$7(5,$/6
 
3/$17(5
  3/$17(5

¬kcFc:ƐFc8ka
‰Fkc
 
5: 3/$17(5
 
)5217%/'*6(7%$&.
   




     
6: /66


 
  &855(17=21,1*5(
(;,67,1*'5,9(:$<
72%(5(029('
3$7,2
352326('=21,1*52
 



 
{
UFc:Ɛ
XŽX
‰Fkc
3523(57</,1( (;,67,1*38(
'5,9($,6/(

    5(48,5('727$/3$5.,1*
 
3('*$7(
5(48,5('$'$
352326('2)),&(
3/175 $872*$7(

352326('
21(6725<2)),&(
2&&83,$%/(6)
352326('727$/3$5.,1*
(;52//&85% 352326('$'$

%,.(3$5.,1*

Xk‰Ɛkš)
:)
5(6,'(1&( 5(6,'(1&(



3523(57</,1(
 
5($5%/'*6(7%$&.




):
XƐ
a)F
cƐk88F)
3/$17(5

=21,1*5( =21,1*5(
$872&2857 352326('   0$;,080/27&29(5$*(
 
21(6725<*$5$*(6725$*( /66
6)
352326('/27&29(5$*(
352326('*$5$*(
3/$17(5
3/$17(5 3/$17(5
šFFcF‰¥Ɛa
{
3$7,2


 
(;%&
%,&<&/(3$5.,1*
6+($%/9'



 
2:1(5&/,(17
3$5.,1*
(;,67,1*
75$16)250(5
/27

 /$1'6&$3($9*  

 
'5,9($,6/(




7+675((7 7+675((7
 
'5,9($,6/(




6,'(%/'*6(7%$&.  
3523(57</,1( /66

 
352-(&7/2&$,721

7+675((7
352326('2)),&(
 


  352326('*$5$*(
 /$1'6&$3($9*$76287+3523(57</,1(
 


{c
6287+3523(57</,1(

5(6,'(1&(
=21,1*5(
5(6,'(1&(
=21,1*5(
$

X):
XƐ
%%)„„
17+67
3$5$',6(9$//(<$=


c)‰Ɛ„F‰)Ɛ
)

{)XFa
c
¥Ɛ„F‰)Ɛ{X
c
1257+
6)


  
)25 )¬kcFc:

'$7( 


5(9




Xk‰Ɛ„
X)„
3(5&23 7+(5($5(12/276$/(6$77+,66,7(
{)XFaFc
¥Ɛ„F‰)Ɛ{X
c

ũkũ{ũƐ{kI)‰ƐF%)c‰F8F
‰FkcƐckũ
.,9$352-(&7

6'(9

3$33




 12
7
5
&2 16


)2
8&
7,


(6 ƞƞĝŐí
/63/>)257+&20,1*@46 




Page 170
     
                   




   
 
 

   




%)œ)‰‰ƐœkU„ƐxxƐ
BF‰)‰Ž)
                   
    
352326('*$5$*( 352326('2)),&( 7 1 4 4 E. S T E T S O N D R . , SU I TE 2 0 4
S C O T T S D A L E , A Z 8 5 2 5 1

ck‰B P 855-373-9388 // F 8 5 5 - 3 7 3 - 9 3 8 8


Ő   
P L A N S @ D R E W E T T W O R K S . COM



ŐǑċċŐƐcƐĂƆ‰BƐ„‰
 
kœc)
     17+67+2/',1*6//&
17+6768,7(


{

%F„)Ɛš
XX)¥ØƐ
¬
3+2(1,;$=86$



%)„F:cƐ
'5(:(77:25.6 íĂƞĂƗ
 
   
(67(7621'568,7(
 
6&2776'$/($=

   
33+21(  




               
                  
 
352326('*$5$*(  

)
„‰ 352326('2)),&(
œ)„‰
Ɨ   
ƞ   
     
                     




 



 
 
 
 
 

   




):
XƐ
a)F
cƐk88F)
a
‰)F
XƐX):)c%
%/2&. 67$&.%21'

                              
 
      0(7$/)$6&,$52//('67((/
352326('2)),&( 352326('*$5$*(



„kŽ‰B
  :22'),1,6+7%'


ċ
       

*/$66
  
    6721(9(1((5
2563/,7)$&(%/2&.




{c
   
  $


  X):
XƐ
%%)„„
17+67
3$5$',6(9$//(<$=



c)‰Ɛ„F‰)Ɛ
)

             
  6)
352326('*$5$*(


œ)„‰ƐkŽ‰¥
%
Ă   
)25


'$7(
)¬kcFc:




   
5(9




 

 
   
)X)š
‰Fkc„



)
„‰ƐkŽ‰¥
%
 
   
 
352326('2)),&(
  ũkũ{ũƐ{kI)‰ƐF%)c‰F8F
‰FkcƐckũ
.,9$352-(&7

6'(9




7
5
&2 16


)2
8&
7,


(6
ƌ   
3$33  ƞƞĝŐí
/63/>)257+&20,1*@46 




Page 171
Page 172
Page 173
Page 174
Page 175
Page 176
Page 177
Page 178
Page 179
Page 180
Page 181
Page 182
Page 183
l a n d s c a p e a rc h i t e c t u r e c o m m u n i t y d e s i g n
G R E EY PICK E T T
7 1 4 4 e s t e t s o n d r i v e, s u i t e 2 0 5
2.#06/#6'4+#.5.')'0&
5[O 2NCPV0COG 5K\G 3V[ %CNKRGT
6TGGU

scottsdale , arizona 85251
Acacia aneura
36" box 11 3"min.
Mulga Acacia

Olneya tesota
60" box 10 4"min.

480 .609 .0009p 480.609 .0068f
Ironwood

Parkinsonia praecox
36" box 17 2"min.
Palo Brea
5JTWDU
Erigonum fasciculatum
5 gal. 23 -
Flat Top Buckwheat D
S
L AND CA P E
A
RE I F I CA TE
RT T EC T
)TQWPFEQXGTU
E
ST CE HI
28448 RC .
PRELIMINARY
REG I
RUSSELL E. NO
Chrysactinia mexicana
5 gal. 24 - GREEY
Damianita NOT FORSCONSTRUCTION
Da
-. te
.2. 2
. .. .
ign 2.1.
Dalea greggii 07. -. .
ed . . .
5 gal. 17 - AR
I ZO A.
Trailing Indigo Bush Ex
N A, U.S.
p i r es 24
Hymenoxys acaulis 12 / 3 1/
1 gal. 22 -
Angelita Daisy
Melampodium leucanthum
1 gal. 7 -
Blackfoot Daisy
#EEGPVU%CEVWU
Agave ovatifolia
15 gal. 6 matched




REGAL AMERICAN OFFICE
Whale's Tongue Agave
Alluaudia procera
5 gal. 17 -
Madagascar Ocotillo
Aloe barbadensis
5 gal. 48 -
Medicinal Aloe
Aloe ferox
5 gal. 26 matched
Cape Aloe
D Aloe 'Rooikappie'
5 gal. 10 -
Little Red Riding Hood Aloe
Asclepias subulata
5 gal. 22 -
Desert Milkweed
Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition'
15 -
Blonde Ambition Blue Grama 5 gal.
Euphorbia antisyphilitica
5 gal. 6 -
Candelilla
135 Ferocactus gracilis
bare root 8 -
Fire Barrel Cactus
SHEA BLVD (EB)

Fouquieria splendens
(L) bare root 9 matched
EX. 6" ROLL CURB S87°45'22"E PROPOSED DRIVEWAY
Ocotillo
277.57'
(ENTRY AND EXIT)
Hesperaloe parviflora-yellow
5 gal. 20 -
3"CA. 3"CA. 3"CA. Yellow Hesperaloe
3"CA. Kalanchoe beharensis 'Blue Slick' (3) @ 5 gal.
4"CA. 4"CA. (10) @ 15 gal. 13 -
W 4"CA.
3"CA. Opuntia basilaris 'Baby Rita'
3"CA. 5 gal. 4 -
3"CA. Baby Rita Prickly Pear
3"CA. 3"CA. 3"CA.
EXISTING FIRE HYDRANT Opuntia ficus-indica
15 gal. 22 -




PARADISE VALLEY, AZ 85253
OWNER/CLIENT
PARKING
Indian Fig
Opuntia gomei 'Old Mexico'
15 gal. 29 -
PROPERTY LINE

Old Mexico Pricklypear (4) @ 4'
Pachycereus schotti f. monstrosus (5) @ 3'
SOLID WASTE
(8) @ 2' 27 single arms
ENCLOSURE Totem Pole Cactus
(10) @ 1'
PLANTER Pedilanthus macrocarpus
PLANTER
5 gal. 12 -




10441 N 57TH ST
3"CA.
PLANTER
Lady's Slipper
Euphorbia ingens 'Chocolate Drop'
2"CA. 15 gal. 9 -
Chocolate Drop Euphorbia
EXISTING DRIVEWAY
TO BE REMOVED Trichocereus grandiflorus
5 gal. 34 -
PATIO
Torch Cactus
Yucca brevifolia
24" box 1 multi-head

PROPERTY LINE
Joshua Tree

2"CA. EXISTING P.U.E.
4"CA.
PLANTER
+0'465
S0°02'04"W
PROPOSED
ONE-STORY OFFICE 5[O &GUETKRVKQP
6,650 OCCUPIABLE SF
EX. 4" ROLL CURB




148.52'
4"CA. 3" MINUS CRUSHED ROCK. ROCK PROS: MAHOGANY COLOR.
2"CA.
1355 016'5
RESIDENCE RESIDENCE


PROPERTY LINE
PLANTER
1. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE WATERED WITH AUTOMATIC DRIP IRRIGATION
ZONING RE-43 AUTO COURT PROPOSED ZONING RE-43
ONE-STORY GARAGE/STORAGE SYSTEM.
4,760 SF
2. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS EXCLUDING TURF TO BE COVERED WITH
2"CA. CRUSHED ROCK.
3"CA. PLANTER
PLANTER PLANTER 3. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE FINAL GRADING. PLANTING
PATIO
SHALL NOT OCCUR UNTIL FINAL GRADING IS APPROVED. revisions:
4. LOCATIONS OF PLANTS SHOWN ON DRAWING ARE APPROXIMATE.
BICYCLE PARKING
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO FIELD APPROVE ALL FINAL LOCATIONS
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
2"CA.
5. DUE TO SEASONAL AND OR UNFORESEEN CONSTRAINTS SOME PLANT
OWNER/CLIENT
PARKING
3"CA.
EXISTING
TRANSFORMER
MATERIAL WILL POSSIBLY NOT BE AVAILABLE AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT LIST OF ANY NON-AVAILABLE
3"CA. 3"CA. 3"CA. MATERIAL TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR REPLACEMENTS TO BE
SELECTED.
2"CA. 6. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ADJUSTED IN FIELD TO AVOID TREE ROOT project #: scale:
BALLS. DWA061 1/16" = 1'-0"
2"CA. 2"CA. 2"CA. S87°47'26"E PROPERTY LINE
7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL IS TO BE RETAIL QUALITY.
2"CA. 2"CA.297.55' 2"CA.
issued for:
2"CA. 2"CA. 8. LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE PICTURES OR SAMPLES OF
2"CA. 2"CA.

57TH STREET
2"CA. 2"CA. ALL PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION FOR APPROVAL.
drawn by: date:
9. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SOURCED FROM OUTSIDE OF ARIZONA TO BE
TEAM 08/17/2022
PROPERLY ACCLIMATED TO ARIZONA CLIMATE DEPENDING ON TIME
RESIDENCE OF YEAR OF INSTALLATION.
METHODS: SUN-SCREEN CLOTH/FABRIC TO BE INSTALLED ABOVE
ZONING RE-43
RESIDENCE
ZONING RE-43
drawing:
PLANT MATERIAL.
Landscape Plan


L3.1
0' 16' 32' 48'

Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0"
of
Copyright C 2014 by
These documents are protected by copyright and may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, without express written consent of the owner or Greey Pickett. Unauthorized reproduction may subject you to civil and criminal liability. Greey | Pickett Professional Corp.




Page 184
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning case no Z-43-22-2
Date: Thursday, September 8, 2022 6:30:58 PM
Attachments: image001.png




From: Jason
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:25 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning 
Subject: Rezoning case no Z-43-22-2



ĞĂƌWůĂŶŶŝŶŐĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͕

/ĂŵĂƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŽĨϱϳƚŚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ͕/ƐƚƌŽŶŐůLJŽďũĞĐƚƚŽƚŚĞĐŚĂŶŐĞŽĨĂŶLJnjŽŶŝŶŐƌĞŐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚŝĐŚĂůůŽǁ
ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚ͘

^ŝŵƉůLJƉƵƚ͕ƚŚŝƐŝƐĂŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĂŶĚƚŚĞƌĞĂƌĞƉůĞŶƚLJŽĨĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƉĂƌĐĞůƐĂŶĚĂƌĞĂƐĨŽƌ
ĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƐŽĨƚŚŝƐŶĂƚƵƌĞ͘

ƚƚŚĞƐĂŵĞƚŝŵĞ͕/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚƌŚĂƌƐŝŵŝůĂƌƌĞƋƵĞƐƚǁĂƐŵĂĚĞĨŽƌϱϴƚŚ^ƚƌĞĞƚĂŶĚ^ŚĞĂƐĞǀĞƌĂůLJĞĂƌƐ
ĂŐŽƚŚĂƚǁĂƐĂůƐŽƚƵƌŶĞĚĚŽǁŶďLJƚŚƌƉůĂŶŶŝŶŐĚĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ͘tŚŝĐŚŵĂŬĞƐƐĞŶƐĞďĞĐĂƵƐĞƚŚŝƐŝƐĂ
ƋƵŝĞƚƌĞƐŝĚĞŶƚŝĂůĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJ͘

/ĂƉƉƌĞĐŝĂƚĞLJŽƵƌĂƚƚĞŶƚŝŽŶƚŽƚŚŝƐŵĂƚƚĞƌĂŶĚ/ĂŵĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞĨŽƌĂŶLJĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ͘WůĞĂƐĞĨĞĞů
ĨƌĞĞƚŽĐŽŶƚĂĐƚŵĞĂŶLJƚŝŵĞ͘

dŚĂŶŬƐ

dĂƌĂĂŶĚ:ĂƐŽŶůĞLJĞŶƐ
ϭϬϮϬϮEϱϳƚŚ^ƚƌĞĞƚ

'ĞƚKƵƚůŽŽŬĨŽƌŶĚƌŽŝĚ΀ĂŬĂ͘ŵƐ΁




Page 185
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: ReZoning Case No: Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:19:52 AM




Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Rebecca Gerber
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 3:35 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: ReZoning Case No: Z-43-22-2

I am in opposition of the proposed rezoning at 57th Street and Shea.

Please do not approve this permit

Rebecca Gerber
5855 E Donna Lane
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

Sent from my iPhone




Page 186
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning case no Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:20:01 AM




Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov

From: Guy Labelle
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:06 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning case no Z-43-22-2




Dear Planning commission,.

“I believe that allowing this rezoning will have a domino effect with additional rezonings and will
reduce the value of our neighborhood.”
"As a resident living in the neighborhoods immediately behind the subject parcel, we strongly
object to the change of any zoning regulations which might allow commercial offices to exist in our
area."
“I appreciate our neighborhood and the special qualities it possesses, and am grateful for your
attention to this matter because this rezoning could change our neighborhood in a negative way.”
Thank you for your consideration in this matter

Guy Labelle




Page 187
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:20:35 AM




From: Mindy Long
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 4:44 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2

To whom it may concern,

As a resident living on 57th Street just houses away from the subject parcel, I am strongly opposed to
changing any zoning regulations that would allow a commercial enterprise to exist in our area. This is
a residential community and I want it to remain so. We love this neighborhood and are happy to be
raising our children here. We want it to maintain a neighborhood feel. It was zone residential when
we purchased our home, and it should remain so.

A similar request was made for a lot at 58th and Shea several years ago and was turned down by the
planning department.

Please reject this proposal and help us maintain our neighborhood’s qualities.

I appreciate your attention and support in this matter.

Thank you,
Mindy Long
10203 N. 57th St.
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253

--
Mindy Long
Mindy Long Freelance LLC
Cell: 703-220-2672
KĨĨŝĐĞϰϴϬͲϯϬϲͲϳϭϳϳ
ŵŝŶĚLJΛŵŝŶĚLJůŽŶŐ͘ĐŽŵ




Page 188
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:19:41 AM




From: Bryan Long
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 9:54 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2

Greetings,

As a resident of 57th Street near Shea Blvd I strongly oppose the proposal to change zoning
regulations that would allow a commercial enterprise to exist in our area. This is a residential
community and we want it to remain so. There is already a serious traffic and parking problem in
our neighborhood and adding commercial enterprise will only exacerbate the problem.

There is a precedent in place denying such rezoning proposals - a similar request was made for a lot
at 58th and Shea previously and was turned down by the planning department.

We ask you to deny any request to rezone this property.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely yours,
Bryan Long
10203 N. 57th Street (F.K.A. 5710 E. Gold Dust Ave)
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253


^ĞŶƚĨƌŽŵŵLJŵŽďŝůĞĚĞǀŝĐĞ͘WůĞĂƐĞĞdžĐƵƐĞďƌĞǀŝƚLJĂŶĚƚLJƉŽƐ͘




Page 189
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Public comment on 57th and Shea
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:22:32 AM


From: Andrew Dunn
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 7:03 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Public comment on 57th and Shea

Good evening,

I am commenting on Item 4 (case Z-43-22-2). My wife and I own a home at 10202 N 58th St and we
are opposed to the rezoning of this property. There are concerns around property values, traffic and
possibly noise issues for our neighborhood. Quite frankly this is a horrible spot to put a business. I
can’t imagine if I lived directly next to that property. This neighborhood was never and should never
be considered for anything other than residential zoning. It’s an obvious money grab by a developer
that wants to maximize their investment. I can’t blame them, but their desire to make money off
the backs of neighbors that may suffer a depreciated asset value should not happen.

If you require more information please let me know. Thanks

Andrew Dunn
612-741-6000




Page 190
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: 57th & Shea Rezoning
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:31:40 AM




Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov

From: John
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:31 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: 57th & Shea Rezoning

To whom it may concern,

“I believe that allowing this rezoning will have a domino effect with additional
rezonings and will reduce the value of our neighborhood.”
"As a resident living in the neighborhoods immediately behind the subject parcel, we
strongly object to the change of any zoning regulations which might allow commercial offices
to exist in our area."
“I appreciate our neighborhood and the special qualities it possesses, and am grateful
for your attention to this matter because this rezoning could change our neighborhood in a
negative way.”
Thank you for your consideration in this matter

John Noto
5802 E Donna Ln
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253




Page 191
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:39:13 AM




From: Amy Tyre On Behalf Of Amy Cerier Tyre
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 7:39 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: RE: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2


Reference: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2

I am a resident of the neighborhood. I live at 6046 E Cochise Rd, Scottsdale, AZ 85253

I strongly object to the change of zoning which might allow commercial offices in our area. I very
much appreciate our neighborhood and the special qualities it possesses. I am grateful for your
attention to this matter as rezoning would change our neighborhood in a negative way.

Thank you in advance for your care and attention in this matter,




602-295-7385



Amy Tyre
Master Life coach and Master Yoga Teacher
Yoga-For-Joy.com [yoga-for-joy.com] atyre@cox.net




P.S. Do you suffer from chronic digestive issues including IBS, Colitis, Ulcerative Colitis, or
Crohn's? I healed my symptoms of Ulcerative Colitis and think what I learned can help others
too. The Digestion Coach Pilot Course round 2 is in the works. Be in touch if you’d like to know
more.




[facebook.com] [linkedin.com]




Page 192
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Cc: Geno Koman
Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: ZA-43-22-2 Neighborhood Comments
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:57:47 PM




-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Wallace
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:54 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: ZA-43-22-2 Neighborhood Comments

To Whom this may concern regarding ZA-43-22-2,

I live just one block east of the proposed rezoning at 10441 N. 57th Street (APN 168-04-008A) and would like to
voice opposition to the PV Village Planning Committee about plans to rezone this RE-43 parcel to an R-O zoned lot
that would welcome office usage.

Like virtually all of the neighbors I have met since moving here, we chose to purchase a home in this neighborhood
to enjoy the serene, low-traffic, and non-commercial atmosphere that Paradise Valley has to offer. As someone with
both an educational and professional background in urban planning and real estate development, I understand the
developer’s desire to place a future office space at this property given the many positive attributes this location has
to offer. However, such a development would cause negative impacts for my neighborhood; including lowered
property values, higher rates of moving traffic through our residential streets with less room to maneuver due to
office workers and guests parking along 57th and 58th Streets, and the invitation to individuals from other areas to
loiter around our currently safe streets that could potentially cause heightened safety and security risks for not only
our residents but to those of all ages who attend the New Church of Phoenix, Congregation Beth Israel Synagogue
(which also has a preschool), and Scottsdale Country Day School.

While “residential” may be used in the wording of this zoning type, I do not believe office space of any kind is
formidable for this exact neighborhood due to how this part of Paradise Valley Village is planned. Should this be
approved, more property owners with parcels fronting Shea Blvd. will attempt to rezone their properties the same
way which will create even more traffic along Shea Blvd, 57th and 58th Streets, and from that point who is to say
the R-O zoning will not be rezoned to C-2 or C-3 leading to greater commercial intensification in this calm
residential area?

In summary, I object to the proposed rezoning and development that could follow for this property and stress the
importance of keeping Paradise Valley (both the town itself and village within Phoenix) a highly desirable and
coveted place that is free from traffic, unwanted visitors, crime, and safety concerns. I am sure there are other
parcels further west and/or north that could accomplish the same goals this developer seeks to achieve that would
receive less neighborhood opposition making it an easier approval for both the developer, planning and development
department, and village planning committee to plan and approve than this location with heavy neighborhood
pushback. I hope the planning committee is able to work in the best interests of the community on this zoning case.

Thank you for your consideration,

Adam Wallace




Page 193
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Cc: Geno Koman
Subject: FW: 57th Street Zoning Case No. Z-43-22-2
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:43:54 PM




-----Original Message-----
From: Cox Shared Email
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 4:42 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: 57th Street Zoning Case No. Z-43-22-2

Dear Phoenix City Government,

As residents of 57th street and Shea we are communicating regarding rezoning case Z-43-22-2. We strongly object
to this plan. Any attempts to create a commercial zoning parcel in this neighborhood would be a tragedy. This is a
residential neighborhood and has been that way for decades. There is no need to damage such a beautiful and
cohesive community with this action, it is unnecessary and contrary to the residential character we have built. A
similar request on 58th and shea was rejected several years ago, and it is our hope that the city would remain
consistent in its approach to preserve cohesive residential communities. We appreciate your time and attention to
this matter, and we have confidence you will make decisions that defend our residential communities.

Best wishes

David and Melissa Rosenfeld
9459 N 57th St
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253




Page 194
From: PDD Long Range Planning
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: FW: Rezoning case no: Z-43-22-2 disapproval
Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 6:50:21 PM




Thank you,
Geno Koman
Secretary II
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Phone: 602-495-2076
geno.koman@phoenix.gov

-----Original Message-----
From: Lany
Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 6:22 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning case no: Z-43-22-2 disapproval

Hello,

I am a current home owner that lives on 57th St and Shea Blvd and I am writing to say that I strongly oppose the
rezoning of case no: Z-43-22-2. I believe that allowing this rezoning will have a domino effect with additional
rezonings and will reduce the value of our neighborhood. Please do not approve! Thank you.



Sincerely,
Lany Sicalo

Sent from my iPhone




Page 195
ATTACHMENT C




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-43-22-2



Date of VPC Meeting September 12, 2022
Request From RE-43
Request To R-O
Proposed Use Residential office
Location Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
VPC Recommendation Continuance to the October 3, 2022 meeting
VPC Vote 15-0


VPC DISCUSSION:

10 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:

Mr. Bojórquez, staff, provided an overview of the rezoning case Z-43-22-2, describing
the location, surrounding land uses, existing zoning, and General Plan Land Use Map
designation. Mr. Bojórquez then discussed the proposed one-story office building with a
detached garage and reviewed the proposed building elevations and renderings. Mr.
Bojórquez shared and discussed the proposed site plan, noting vehicular access would
be along Shea Boulevard and enhanced landscape standards adjacent to single-family
residential would be provided. Mr. Bojórquez noted that staff received 11 letters of
opposition, citing concerns with traffic, noise, loss of residential character, and impacts
to property values. Mr. Bojórquez shared the staff findings and recommendation of
approval and described the proposed stipulations.

Applicant Presentation:

Jason Morris, representing the applicant with Withey Morris, PLC, introduced himself
and noted that opposition present at the meeting has taken place in roughly the last five
days. Mr. Morris summarized the efforts the applicant has made for community outreach
and expressed their willingness to continue their efforts to address any concerns that
may come up. Mr. Morris provided an overview of the proposal, noting that the property
owner is the same as the developer, and that the proposed office would be for the
owner’s business for custom single-family homes. Mr. Morris then provided an overview

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 196
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

of the owner’s business, Regal American Homes and Drewett Works, a boutique
architectural firm. Mr. Morris then provided an overview of the site location, rezoning
request, and surrounding uses, noting that Shea Boulevard is not a hospitable
residential street to front on and the likelihood of building a single-family residence on
Shea Boulevard is very slim. Mr. Morris referenced Section 620 (Residential Office) of
the Zoning Ordinance, quoting that the purpose of the R-O district is “intended to control
developments on the edges of residential areas which, because of their location on
arterial streets or other environmental conditions, are susceptible to pressures for
nonresidential uses”. Mr. Morris summarized that the subject site is an appropriate
location for the transition that R-O zoning district is intended for and would provide a
buffer between an arterial street and residential. Mr. Morris then discussed possible
alternative uses for the existing RE-43 zoning that would be allowed by-right that could
be more detrimental to the neighborhood than the proposed use. Mr. Morris then
provided an overview of the project, noting that the project would provide high quality
design, construction, and landscaping, with minimal traffic generation and would be
oriented away from the neighborhood. Mr. Morris then provided an overview of site
access, noting site access is exclusively from Shea Boulevard and would not be from
the local residential street, being 57th Street. Mr. Morris then shared the building
renderings and emphasized the residential character of the architecture. Mr. Morris
stated the hours of operation would end no later than 4:00 p.m. and that parking would
be located closer to Shea Boulevard than to the adjacent residential areas. Mr. Morris
noted that the building height is less than other existing buildings in the neighborhood,
and only pedestrian access is being provided to 57th Street. Mr. Morris concluded his
presentation by providing a summary of the project benefits.

Questions from the Committee:

Chair Gubser thanked Mr. Morris for his presentation and asked about the internal
traffic circulation. Mr. Morris responded ingress/egress is from the far eastern driveway,
and an employee or the owners of Regal American can enter through that driveway off
Shea Boulevard and then park either in the parking garage or in the parking stalls that
face Shea Boulevard. Mr. Morris stated there is a pedestrian path along the northern
side of the property that connects to the front door. Mr. Morris stated that in terms of
refuse, the applicant has met with commercial haulers to ensure that the design works
for collection of refuse through the same driveway.

Jennifer Hall stated the renderings show detached garages and appear to look like a
show room, noting a problem the neighborhood is having with muscle cars speeding
down the road, and asked if an automobile showroom is proposed. Mr. Morris
responded that the applicant has no desire to use the detached garage as a showroom
and that an automobile showroom use is not permitted in the R-O zoning district.

Cindy DiMassa echoed the same concern of expensive cars that make a lot of noise.
Mr. Morris reiterated that an automobile showroom is not proposed for the site.

Alan Sparks echoed the same concern, indicating the detached garage as presented in
the renderings appears to be very large for four to eight employees and a prospective
client or two coming from time to time. Mr. Morris clarified that the idea behind the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 197
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

design of the buildings was to mimic what Regal American would typically build for a
client’s home. Mr. Morris stated that the garage could help clients visualize the size and
scale of the garage and what could fit inside of it for their own properties.

Mr. Sparks thanked Mr. Morris and asked Mr. Bojórquez to clarify the takings waiver
stipulation. Mr. Bojórquez responded that the last stipulation is a standard stipulation
that calls for the applicant to waive their right to make any claim for diminution of
property value as a result of the City’s action on the above-referenced application.

Mr. Goodhue asked how many parking spaces are being provided and how many are
required. Mr. Morris replied that 26 total spaces are provided, and 23 are required. Mr.
Goodhue expressed his surprise that so many parking spaces are required for a
residential office use. Mr. Morris stated that the applicant may consider applying for a
variance to allow a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, since they know
the excess parking spaces will never be used. Mr. Goodhue agreed that reducing the
number of parking spaces would be a good idea. Mr. Morris agreed and stated that it
took the applicant three months to redesign the site plan to accommodate the
neighbors’ request that there be no driveway on 57th Street.

Mr. Popovic asked if the applicant’s client builds multi-million-dollar homes. Mr. Morris
responded affirmatively. Mr. Popovic asked if the client has agreed to not put a
driveway off 57th Street and has given up the right-of-way by putting a 10-foot-wide
pedestrian walkway. Mr. Morris responded yes and noted that his client has given up
additional land on the north side to create a landscape strip to hide parking. Mr.
Popovic asked if the client has only put one driveway as far away as possible along
Shea Boulevard for ingress/egress, that being the only way in and out of the area. Mr.
Morris responded that is correct. Mr. Popovic asked if there are some houses to the
south that have taller roofs than the proposed development. Mr. Morris responded their
neighbor’s RV garage is far in excess than what they are showing. Mr. Popovic asked if
the applicant is prepared to spend several million dollars, assuming they have already
spent several hundred thousand soft costs, looking at the feasibility of this proposal and
coming to a compromise with the City and neighbors who have been outreached in a
timely manner. Mr. Morris responded that his client is not only a premier architect in
Arizona but is also one of the best-known architects in the nation in terms of luxury
housing. Mr. Morris added that redesigning their site to address concerns has added a
considerable cost to the proposal. Mr. Popovic clarified that the look and feel of the site
is supposed to be like a multi-million-dollar home, although it is being used as a small
office space for a high-end builder. Mr. Morris responded that is correct. Mr. Popovic
asked if the allocated parking spaces went above and beyond what the City requires.
Mr. Morris responded yes, to their detriment, and that it is very likely they will be
requesting a variance to allow a reduction in parking for spaces they do not need and
will turn those spaces into landscaping. Mr. Popovic clarified if it was essentially
compromising for the betterment of the site and the area. Mr. Morris responded
affirmatively.

Chair Gubser asked for clarification regarding the dedication or giving away of some
property on 57th Street. Mr. Morris responded they are providing a dedication that he
believes is a total of 55 feet due to this being an older neighborhood that did not have a

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 198
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

complete dedication of Shea Boulevard. Mr. Morris mentioned they are also providing
an additional 10-foot sidewalk to push the sidewalk a little further back. Chair Gubser
clarified it was on Shea Boulevard and not 57th Street. Mr. Morris stated that is correct.

Toby Gerst asked if the area is in a conservation district. Mr. Morris responded no,
stating that the conservation district that he is aware of is further west but not as far
east. Ms. Gerst asked if there will only be one tenant in the office. Mr. Morris stated
that is correct, that they are willing to stipulate that as well, and that it is for the sole use
of Regal American Homes. Ms. Gerst asked if the applicant has addressed that
stipulation with the City. Mr. Morris responded that the City cannot draft that stipulation
but that they are sizing it in a manner that is only usable for their client. Ms. Gerst
asked to clarify if the applicant is willing to stipulate that. Mr. Morris clarified they are
willing to stipulate it on the record, but that it is not currently a stipulation of the case.
Ms. Gerst stated another concern of hers was that it appears as though the garage
could be made into a second office building. Mr. Morris responded that they would
need to provide additional parking to utilize the garage building as an office, which they
cannot fit on the site. Ms. Gerst asked Mr. Bojórquez how the stipulation could be
added to limit the office use to one occupant. Mr. Bojórquez responded that City policy
is that specific uses for a property, site plans and elevations can be stipulated, but a
specific user or exact use on the property cannot be stipulated. Mr. Bojórquez clarified
that all underlying uses permitted in the requested zoning district must be allowed.

Public Comment:

Matthew Karlovsky stated he lives about six houses south of the subject site and
spoke in opposition. Mr. Karlovsky stated there is uniform opposition to this proposal not
only on his street but also along 58th Street and 56th Street. Mr. Karlovsky continued
that there used to be a single-family home on the property more than a year ago that
was demolished and believes referring to it as vacant land is misleading. Mr. Karlovsky
expressed concern with other underlying permitted uses allowed in the R-O zoning
district, and that once allowed the office can be split into multiple offices. Mr. Karlovsky
also expressed concerns with increased traffic, danger to elderly people and worshipers
that walk along the street to the nearby church and synagogue, increased crime with a
parking lot full of race cars that are targets and increased noise from the loud motors of
the race cars.

Richard Pasquale stated he lives about five to six houses away from this property. Mr.
Pasquale commended the developer for proposing a residential appearing facility, but
stated it is not a residence and that he is concerned that it is bringing commercial
activity into the neighborhood. Mr. Pasquale expressed concern that similar arguments
used for this project could then be used for other nearby properties that would bring
more offices to the area, bringing a complete set of commercial activity. Mr. Pasquale
echoed similar concerns of traffic and this being a busy area. Mr. Pasquale stated the
neighborhood is concerned with the precedent approving this rezoning request would
set for future redevelopment nearby and how it would affect their neighborhood.

Denise Van De Bossche stated she lives on 57th Street and drives by this lot several
times each day. Ms. Van De Bossche was not aware of this request until the sign went

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 199
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

up two weeks ago and does not believe there was enough outreach for the
neighborhood to digest it. Ms. Van De Bossche expressed concerns with there being
more traffic. Ms. Van De Bossche concluded by stating there are at least 75 people
behind the 11 letters of opposition that were received that she has spoken to.

Andrea Wagenhals stated she agrees with Mr. Karlovsky and Ms. Van De Bossche.
Ms. Wagenhals stated she also lives on 57th Street and has lived there for 24 years.
Ms. Wagenhals stated that she drives by this lot 50 times a day all day long. Ms.
Wagenhals echoed Ms. Van De Bossche stating she received no notification by mail
and that no one came to her door, and that she only became aware of this request two
weeks ago. Ms. Wagenhals stated the neighborhood prides itself in being very quiet and
that there are no streetlights in the neighborhood. Ms. Wagenhals expressed concerns
with the lighting of the structure. Ms. Wagenhals wanted to know how long the owner
has owned the property and if he intended on building this structure when he bought it.
Ms. Wagenhals stated the property was an empty lot that was not cleaned up and had
an old refrigerator sitting on it up until a month ago. Ms. Wagenhals stated that she
opposes this request and believes further time is needed to address the neighbors’
concerns. Ms. Wagenhals believes it was very deceitful in the way the applicant did
their community outreach.

Bimal Merchant stated he was also a neighbor on 57th Street. Mr. Merchant echoed
that the neighbors only noticed it a few weeks ago when the sign went up. Mr. Merchant
echoed that there used to be an older home on the property that was demolished, and
no one had any idea what was going on there; they assumed a new home would be
built there. Mr. Merchant expressed concerns with the potential for additional traffic due
to his and his wife’s two young daughters. Mr. Merchant stated while the office may be
the intended initial use, the R-O zoning district allows a long list of other uses that may
be problematic for their neighborhood, in terms of traffic, crime and property values. Mr.
Merchant stated the neighbors are disappointed and surprised by this request and he
believes that the sign was put up very last minute to avoid public comment.

Mindy Long echoed concerns with bringing in a commercial property into a residential
neighborhood, including there being more traffic in the neighborhood and danger to
children out on the street.

Angie Whitaker introduced herself and her husband as a neighbor across Shea
Boulevard in opposition. Ms. Whitaker stated they would be directly impacted as they
would be viewing the commercial building, driveway and garage which used to be a
beautiful residential home.

Mr. Whitaker echoed all the same concerns that were brought up by previous
speakers, including traffic, views, noise, and property values. Mr. Whitaker noted he
would not be opposed if a home was proposed with a home office, but because it is a
full-on commercial office, he is opposed to this request.

Robert Zimmerman introduced himself as a neighbor on 56th Street in opposition. Mr.
Zimmerman stated it is already a busy street because it is the only light accessible to
Shea Boulevard, and that they already get a lot of traffic from the Jewish Temple and

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 200
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

from Mountain View. Mr. Zimmerman posed several questions, including ingress/egress
on Shea Boulevard, parking on 57th Street due to direct access to the front door, and
use of the property as a showcase property that would have evening events, happy
hours, and weekend events to entertain clients. Mr. Zimmerman stated he was notified
of this by a note taped to his mailbox by a resident, and he believes there has been zero
neighborhood outreach by the applicant.

Dan Moldovan introduced himself as a neighbor since 1986 in opposition. Mr.
Moldovan stated that he owns four properties on the street and would not be against
building a nice home there but is against building a commercial property. Mr. Moldovan
echoed concerns of traffic, parking, and property values. Mr. Moldovan stated that he
has a lot invested into the community and would love to see a nice home built there but
not more commercial activity due to the previously stated concerns.

Applicant Response to Public Comment:

Mr. Morris clarified that his client purchased a vacant lot with lots of trash and no fence
around it, which his client cleaned up and fenced. Mr. Morris stated his client would not
build a single-family residence at this location because of its proximity to Shea
Boulevard, but that it does have alternatives allowed in the existing zoning district which
is why his client was comfortable closing on it. Mr. Morris clarified that the alternatives
are much more onerous than the restrictions being placed on an R-O zoned property.
Mr. Morris argued that the stated concerns with traffic, access to 57th Street, property
values, building heights and other uses are more prevalent if the property is not rezoned
to R-O, in terms of an Airbnb or a group home. Mr. Morris argued these uses have less
regulation and more unregulated traffic with access immediately to 57th Street than
what is proposed.

Mr. Morris continued by stating that the costs of the type of construction being proposed
is significantly more than what the costs of building an Airbnb or group home would be.
Mr. Morris also stated that they see it very unlikely that a single-family home would be
built on this property. Mr. Morris continued to address concerns regarding community
outreach. Mr. Morris stated it is not his client’s or his office’s doing and assured they
have done everything they can do elicit input. Mr. Morris continued by stating much of
the concerns they have heard, such as concerns about it turning into a church, are
irrelevant because it would be allowed on the property already by-right without needing
to rezone. Mr. Morris argued that building height should not be a concern since they are
already being restricted to less than the overall height allowed in R-O by voluntarily
restricting themselves to that height. Mr. Morris continued that they brought in the best
architects and designed a contemporary office with a residential look and feel, and
neighbors claiming it would somehow devalue their properties, when they have just
heard how many rentals there are down this block, countermands their argument. Mr.
Morris stated they do not want to be accused of sneaking anything in. Mr. Morris
assumes many of these residents were on vacation during the summer and may not
have participated in some of meetings that occurred during the summer. Mr. Morris
offered their willingness to continue the case so they can have a full and thorough
discussion with the concerned neighbors in hopes for them to have a better
understanding of what is being proposed and what would be allowed on the property

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 201
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

with R-O zoning, since there seemed to be some misunderstanding. Mr. Morris
welcomed any feedback from the Committee.

Discussion:

Vice Chair Joe Lesher commented that he would agree with Mr. Morris’ suggestion of
continuing the case to see how the applicant can adjust their proposal to address their
concerns. Vice Chair Lesher stated that he finds having group homes and Airbnb’s is a
much more negative experience, especially given the fact that they are allowed under
the current zoning. Vice Chair Lesher commented if there was some way that the
neighbors and the applicant can come to a happy consensus, it would be better for all
concerned.

Mr. Soronson echoed Vice Chair Lesher’s comments. Mr. Soronson believes that the
applicant and neighborhood need to get together and work things out.

Mr. Sparks echoed Mr. Soronson and Vice Chair Lesher. Mr. Sparks believes both
sides have very valid arguments and believes they are concerns that can be resolved
through conversation. Mr. Sparks stated the part that bothers him is the fact that so
many of the neighbors have been taken by surprise when there are notification
requirements to notify nearby neighbors that would be impacted. Mr. Sparks expressed
his concern that the neighbors’ feelings have not been properly addressed and believes
a little bit more time for the parties to get together would be good. Mr. Sparks clarified
he would rather vote for a continuance.

Mr. Popovic echoed Mr. Sparks, Mr. Soronson, and Vice Chair Lesher’s comments,
and stated that the Committee should vote for a continuance to allow the concerned
neighbors and the applicant more time to work together.

Mr. Goodhue clarified that from a procedural standpoint, the Committee is only a
recommendation entity. Mr. Goodhue stated if the Committee votes to continue, it would
only be a recommendation, and asked if the client could still opt to go to City Council.
Mr. Morris clarified that they would not proceed to Planning Commission or City Council
until they had a recommendation of approval from the Committee.

Ms. Gerst asked Mr. Bojórquez what notification requirements are in terms of time
before the hearing. Mr. Bojórquez responded it is a minimum of 10 days before the
VPC hearing and that the notice of hearing letter must be sent out by the applicant. Mr.
Bojórquez stated signs must be posted a minimum of 14 days before the hearing.

Ms. Gerst stated she would be opposed to the project without a continuance for several
reasons. Ms. Gerst stated that she lived in an area like this one on 37th Street and
Shea Boulevard, where an office building was built on a previously zoned RE-43 lot. Ms.
Gerst noted that the design and height was changed and that the traffic is still adversely
impacting the neighbors today. Ms. Gerst clarified it is not to say that would happen in
this case, but believes more time is needed and that there should be a continuance.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 202
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
September 12, 2022

Mr. Goodhue motioned to recommend a continuance of Z-43-22-2 to the October 3,
2022 Village Planning Committee meeting. Roy Wise seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-43-22-2:

15-0; motion to recommend a continuance of Z-43-22-2 to the October 3, 2022 meeting
passes with Committee members Balderrama, Bowman, DiMassa, Gerst, Goodhue,
Hall, Mazza, Mortensen, Popovic, Soronson, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher and Gubser
in favor.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 203
ATTACHMENT D




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-43-22-2



Date of VPC Meeting October 3, 2022
Request From RE-43
Request To R-O
Proposed Use Residential office
Location Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
VPC Recommendation Continuance to the November 7, 2022 meeting
VPC Vote 15-0


VPC DISCUSSION:
This case was continued from the September 12, 2022 Paradise Valley VPC meeting.

4 members of the public registered to speak on this item, in opposition.

Staff Presentation:
None.

Applicant Presentation:
Jason Morris, representing the applicant with Withey Morris, PLC, introduced himself
and discussed their neighborhood outreach following the continuance of this case at the
September 12, 2022, Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee meeting. One
neighborhood meeting was hosted and the neighbors in attendance requested changes
to the project due to traffic concerns and fears of increased commercialization in the
neighborhood. Mr. Morris requested a continuance of the case to the November 7,
2022, Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Morris will also be
requesting a continuance at the October 6, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

Questions from the Committee:

None.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 204
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
October 3, 2022

Public Comment:

Patrick Van de Bossche stated that the number of individuals in opposition to this case
has increased and 70 individuals now have signed a petition of opposition to the project.

Matthew Karlovsky stated that there is overwhelming opposition to this project. Mr.
Karlovsky sent a letter of opposition on the case and attended the last neighborhood
meeting hosted by the applicant at Chaparral High School. Mr. Karlovsky does not
agree with the applicant’s argument of not building a single-family home on this lot and
the developer should have known the limitations of building on the lot before purchasing
it. Mr. Karlovsky stated that it is inappropriate for the applicant to state that if this office
project is not built here, that they might develop a short-term rental or a group home on
the site instead. Mr. Karlovsky stated that there are no neighbors in support of this
request, and he wishes for this case to be denied.

Bryan Long attended the last neighborhood meeting hosted by the applicant and feels
that this continuance may create confusion or wear down the opposition to the case. Mr.
Long stated that this continuance is not being requested in good faith by the applicant.
Mr. Long lives close to the subject site and did not find out that meetings were being
hosted in the summer regarding this case until it was too late.

Denise Van De Bossche registered to speak on the case but opted to not provide
comments.

Applicant Response to Public Comment:

Mr. Morris shared that he is optimistic that common ground will be found with the
neighbors. Mr. Morris discussed his interactions with Vice Chair Lesher as a neighbor
on another project years prior and described how his team worked with the community
on that contentious case.

Discussion:

Vice Chair Joe Lesher encouraged the neighbors to engage in conversations with the
applicant and to advocate for things that they do want to see in the project. Vice Chair
Lesher stated that neighbors do have the ability to keep fighting the case if they choose
to and find it is in their best interest.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

Mr. Goodhue motioned to recommend a continuance of Z-43-22-2 to the November 7,
2022 Village Planning Committee meeting. Alex Popovic seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-43-22-2:
15-0; motion to recommend a continuance of Z-43-22-2 to the November 7, 2022
meeting passes with Committee members Bowman, DiMassa, Goodhue, Maggiore,
Mazza, Mortensen, Petersen, Popovic, Schmidt, Soronson, Sparks, Ward, Wise, Lesher
and Gubser in favor.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 205
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
October 3, 2022

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

No comments.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 206
ATTACHMENT E




ADDENDUM A
Staff Report Z-43-22-2
November 7, 2022

Paradise Valley Village Planning November 7, 2022
Committee Meeting Date:
Planning Commission Hearing Date: December 1, 2022
Request From: RE-43 (One-Family Residence District)
(1.37 acres)
Request To: R-O (Restricted Commercial District)
(1.37 acres)
Proposed Use: Residential Office
Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and
Shea Boulevard

Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings
Applicant/Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations

On September 12, 2022, and October 3, 2022, the Paradise Valley Village Planning
Committee heard this request and recommended a continuance by a vote of 15-0 in
both instances. The applicant has since submitted a revised site plan and elevations,
on November 2, 2022, that addresses the community and committee concerns
regarding the garage size. In addition, since the staff report was published on
September 12, 2022, staff has received 19 letters in opposition which are included as
an attachment. Concerns include commercial uses encroaching into the established
residential neighborhood, traffic, property values, and safety. Staff has also received
7 letters in support which are included as an attachment. The letters support the
enhanced architecture, access via Shea Boulevard, and residential office use rather
than short-term rentals.

The revised site plan includes a garage that was reduced by 145 square feet
adjacent to an existing residential property. In addition, the revised elevations include
a reduction in fencing facing 57th Street and alternative fencing between the
proposed office and the proposed garage. Due to the revised site plan and
elevations, staff recommends revisions to the stipulations as follows:
x Stipulation No. 1 regarding general conformance to the site plan and
elevations.




Page 207
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
November , 2022

x Stipulation No. 2 regarding the garage size.

Staff recommends approver per the modified stipulations in bold font below.

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022 and elevations date stamped
August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022, with specific regard to the inclusion of
metal fascia, wood finish, and stone veneer walls or split face block, as
modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. THE DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 4,615
SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

2. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.
3.

3. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south
4. property line.

4. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east
5. property line and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
6. caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
7. caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50
8. percent 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25 percent 4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area
9. located between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and
replenish it to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant




Page 208
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
November , 2022

shade trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live
coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

9. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
10. constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
11. inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
12. and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-foot-
13. wide sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as approved by
the Planning and Development Department.

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

14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
15. 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.

15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
16. 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 209
Staff Report: Z-43-22-2
November , 2022

Exhibits
Revised Conceptual Site Plan date stamped November 2, 2022
Revised Conceptual Elevations date stamped November 2, 202
Community Correspondence ( pages)




Page 210
Page 211
Page 212
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Stop the change to Commercial - Z-43-22-2?



From: vbroman@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 10:35 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Stop the change to Commercial

As a resident in the city of Phoenix (although our address shows Paradise Valley), we are strongly opposed to building
more commercial property in an area that is residential. There is more than enough office space and commercial
property on Shea Blvd. There is more being built next to the Mountainside Fitness Center, and there are lots of available
office space signs within a 2Ͳmile radius of this area. The office area is not needed. By changing this area on Shea to
commercial, it will impact the homes around it. We are a residential community, and we moved to this area because it
was a residential area. The amount of traffic on Shea Blvd currently is overwhelming. More traffic coming on and off
Shea for commercial purposes causes more congestion, more noise, and a lesser quality of living for those of us that live
here. There is no value to converting more residential properties on Shea to commercial, except for the developers and
construction companies that reap the profits. My husband and I object to this change and believe that it will impact our
area and the quality of life in our area, in the future.

Regards,

Vicki Broman
6146 E. Cochise Road
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
480Ͳ699Ͳ7788





Page 213
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2



From: denise@vdbassociates.com
Sent: Thursday, September 8, 2022 2:11 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

I am a neighboring homeowner in opposition to Rezoning the parcel at 10441 N. 57th Street and Shea
Blvd. (Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2)
The subject parcel backs to a well-established residential community in strong opposition to any
change.
57th Street forms a gateway entry corridor into the Town of Paradise Valley with large well maintained
residential lots (RE-43) and the natural and scenic amenities leading up to Mummy Mountain and the
foothills of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve.

Commercial zoning at the subject lot will reduce property values and negate the trajectory of
improvements made in the last 5 years on 57th Street. This is one of the last areas in Phoenix where
there are large acre lots, with homeowners who have raised their families for several decades.
Homeowners here are taken the appreciation of the last decade and re-investedhundreds of
thousands of dollars in improvements. Any re-zoning at the entrance into our beautiful neighborhood
will immediately reduce the property values. This is an unfair proposal which does not take into
account the residential character of the neighborhood.

Changing the zoning will also require traffic controls on Shea. It will also introduce commercial traffic
on to our residential streets. And it will set a precedent along Shea for additional commercial
buildings, which are unnecessary. There are numerous offices at the intersections of Tatum and Shea,
as well as Scottsdale Rd and Shea. There is absolutely no reason there needs to be additional office
space in this post-COVID environment which has changed the need for additional office space and
resulted in excess office space throughout the area. We believe this is self-serving and strongly
oppose the application.

Sincerely,
Denise van den Bossche
Homeowner: 9640 N. 57th Street
Mobile: 602-980-0737





Page 214
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Application No: Z-43-22




From: Bob DeLean
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2022 12:38 PM
To: Nayeli Sanchez Luna
Subject: Application No: ZͲ43Ͳ22

Ms. Sanchez Luna,

I want to express my opposition to the application to change this property from REͲ43 to RͲO. This is a residential
neighborhood. Period. It is unfair to the longͲtime residents that live in the vicinity to allow a highͲtraffic office building
into this purely residential area. Withey Morris states that Regal American Homes has earned a reputation as one of
Arizona's premier luxury home builders. Fantastic. Let them build a very lucrative premier luxury home on this lot. This
lot and the surrounding subdivisions are zoned REͲ43 for a reason ͲͲͲ because this is a residential neighborhood. There
are plenty of other locations that are already zoned for an office building.

To allow this zoning change to occur so that a corporation can make more money is a slap in the face to the residential
taxpayers that call this neighborhood home. Please contact me if you'd like to discuss further.


Sincerely,

Robert DeLean
5811 E Cochise Rd, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
Country Estates Lot #17
(2 lots east of proposed sight)
480Ͳ437Ͳ4454





Page 215
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2




From: Bimal Merchant
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2022 7:05 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in reference to the aboveͲreferenced rezoning case. I live at 9809 N 57th Street and am strongly opposed to
the rezoning of the property located at the Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard. I am extremely
concerned that the rezoning of this property will have a material adverse impact to property values. In addition, I am
worried about safety in the neighborhood. A residential office will increase traffic and could potentially open the doors
to rezoning of more properties in the neighborhood.

The plan and specifics disclosed by the property owner’s attorney not only includes a residential office but also includes
a massive garage. That should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood. While the designation will be for a
residential office, there is no way to constantly monitor the property to assure its intended use. The possible uses could
extend to parties and other events that would bring noise and unwanted attention from bad actors.

I have two young daughters: 11 years old and 9 years old. We bought into this neighborhood because of the family feel,
proximity to great schools, restaurants and other venues. By rezoning to commercial (residential office), there is concern
amongst a vast majority of the neighbors that the same would cause significant detriment to our otherwise family
oriented neighborhood. We are extremely concerned that the rezoning would also bring unwanted attention from
criminals and other wrong doers.

Had we known that a property on our very street could be rezoned to commercial, we would have had some serious
pause and likely would not have moved forward. This would be an embarrassment for our neighborhood.

I cannot stress enough how vehemently we and our neighbors are to this rezoning. We strongly encourage the Paradise
Valley Village Committee as well as the City of Phoenix deny the rezoning request.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Bimal Raj Merchant
9809 N 57th Street
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
(480) 544Ͳ3505





Page 216
From: Adrian G Zambrano
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Z-43-22-2 - 2022-09-27 - Opposition - Christa Klein
Date: Wednesday, September 28, 2022 12:23:00 PM



From: christa klein
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 6:24 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re-zoning case number Z-43-22-2

Our family of 7 lives on 57th street just south of the subject parcel. We strongly object to this re-
zoning. We feel it will make the neighborhood less safe for our children to play outside and walk to
the bus stop. I believe there is plenty of commercial property already available at shea and Tatum
that is already sitting empty, therefore, if a business wants to open close by there is already a place
for them. We just bought this home less than a year ago because its in a “neighborhood” close
enough to be a part of everything while still being secluded and safe. Putting a business on the end
of the block will change that drastically and lower our new home’s value. It will bring in unwanted
traffic and endanger the families with small children, like ours, that live here.

Please keep our neighborhood a safe place for kids and families. Thank you for your consideration in
this matter.

-Christa, Mike, Allie, Charli, Ethyn, Carlotta and Camilla Klein,
10019 N 57th St, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253




Page 217
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Item 3, Oct 3 Meeting, Case #Z-43-22-2




From: denise@vdbassociates.com
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 5:15 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: denise@vdbassociates.com
Subject: Item 3, Oct 3 Meeting, Case #ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

Dear Committee members,
have had a full time career in real estate here in the Valley for 40 years. I have also been a homeowner in
Paradise Valley since 1984, my first home being very close to the Paradise Valley Mall. I now live ½ mile from
the 57th and Shea proposed reͲzoning application and do much of my business in this neighborhood. I have
sold several homes on 57th Street. I can guarantee you that any reͲzoning on the lot at 10441 N. 57th Street will
immediately and significantly devalue this neighborhood.

The role of the committee is to recommend requests that will help the community as a whole. The community
will not benefit from any reͲzoning on the applicant’s lot. The application is selfͲserving strictly for the benefit
of the applicant to profit to the determent of the entire neighborhood.

The applicant just purchased the property this year. We have lived here for decades. Some of the immediate
neighbors who live the closest, and others who have signed petitions opposing this reͲzoning, grew up here
and have lived here for 4 decades or longer.

We all look to the committee to look at the situation in relationship to their role and purpose in the Urban
Village committee, which is to be a voice to the politicians on what is best for the community, and not allow
special interests to override that purpose.

Warmly,
Denise van den Bossche





Page 218
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Item 3, Oct 3 Meeting, Case #Z-43-22-2
Attachments: Re-Zoning Petition 37 - 40 sigs.pdf; Re-zoning Petition 1-16 fully signed.pdf; Re-Zoning Petition
17-26 sigs.pdf; Re-Zoning Petition 27 - 36 sigs.pdf; Signature 5721 E Mountain View LaBelle Guy.pdf;
Signature E Mountain View LaBelle.pdf; Signature 10209 N 57th St Karlovsky x 2.pdf; Signature x 4
9459 N. 57th St.pdf; Signature 9841 N 57th St Gerston.pdf; Signature x 4 5700 E Bar Z Lane & 10405
N 57th St.pdf; Signature x 3 10616 N. 68th Pl & 10628 N 68th Pl.pdf; Signature x 2 Klein 10019 N
57th St.pdf; Signature 10038 N 57th St Scatena.pdf




From: denise@vdbassociates.com
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2022 5:26 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Re: Item 3, Oct 3 Meeting, Case #ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

Dear Committee members,
Attached are the signatures of 59 immediate neighbors Opposing ANY rezoning of the 10441 N. 57th Street
(Subject Property applying for reͲzoning).
Please include for committee members for Monday’s meeting. More petitions are in process.

Warmly,
Denise van den Bossche
Neighbor of Subject Property: 9640 N. 57th Street





Page 219
Page 220
Page 221
Page 222
Page 223
        
          

#  "          !    $
    
             

           
Guy Labelle 5721 East Mountianview rd
Paradise Valley Az 85253




            

Page 224
Page 225
Page 226
Page 227
Page 228
        
          

#  "          !    $
    
             

           

pat Labelle Pat Labelle
East Mountainview rd
Paradise Valley Az




            

Page 229
Page 230
Page 231
Page 232
Page 233
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Z-43-22-2



From: Bimal Merchant
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 9:34 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

To whom it may concern:

I am writing in reference to the aboveͲreferenced rezoning case. I live at 9809 N 57th Street and am strongly opposed to
the rezoning of the property located at the Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard. I am extremely
concerned that the rezoning of this property will have a material adverse impact to property values. In addition, I am
worried about safety in the neighborhood. A residential office will increase traffic and could potentially open the doors
to rezoning of more properties in the neighborhood.

The plan and specifics disclosed by the property owner’s attorney not only includes a residential office but also includes
a massive garage. That should not be allowed in a residential neighborhood. While the designation will be for a
residential office, there is no way to constantly monitor the property to assure its intended use. The possible uses could
extend to parties and other events that would bring noise and unwanted attention from bad actors.

I have two young daughters: 11 years old and 9 years old. We bought into this neighborhood because of the family feel,
proximity to great schools, restaurants and other venues. By rezoning to commercial (residential office), there is concern
amongst a vast majority of the neighbors that the same would cause significant detriment to our otherwise family
oriented neighborhood. We are extremely concerned that the rezoning would also bring unwanted attention from
criminals and other wrong doers.

Had we known that a property on our very street could be rezoned to commercial, we would have had some serious
pause and likely would not have moved forward. This would be an embarrassment for our neighborhood.

I cannot stress enough how vehemently we and our neighbors are to this rezoning. We strongly encourage the Paradise
Valley Village Committee as well as the City of Phoenix deny the rezoning request.

If you have any questions or would like to discuss, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,

Bimal Raj Merchant
9809 N 57th Street
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
(480) 544Ͳ3505

Sent from my iPhone





Page 234
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: ReZoning Case No: Z-43-22-2



Original Message-----
From: Matthew Laffer
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 12:10 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Cc: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: ReZoning Case No: Z-43-22-2

Dear Councilman Waring,

I am writing in opposition of of the rezoning of the land parcel at 57th and Shea. As a new family to this
residential community I strongly oppose this permit. This is a residential community and I want it to remain
so. We love this neighborhood and as a parent of 3 young children am worried about the changes of
bringing increased business and traffic to our neighborhood. A similar request was made for a lot at 58th
and Shea several years ago and was turned down by the council. I hope that you are able to continue to
support the families in this area that would be negatively effected by increasing business in a quiet,
residential area. We look forward to your support in opposing this proposal prior to our family, friends and
neighbors casting our votes in the November 8th election.

Thank you,

Dr. Matthew Laffer & Mrs. Brittany Laffer
5610 East Mountain View Rd
Paradise Valley, 85253





Page 235
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Comment for Monday Nov 7 meeting: Rezoning Case No.: Z-43-22-2



From: Matthew Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 11:55 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning ; Enrique A BojorquezͲGaxiola gaxiola@phoenix.gov>
Subject: Comment for Monday Nov 7 meeting: Rezoning Case No.: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

Dear Planning Committee,

This is the 3rd virtual event that I am participating in to register my strong opposition to this rezoning attempt.
Our neighborhood of single-family homeowners on N. 57th St, N. 58th St and N. 56th St are all unanimously
opposed resoundingly against the absentee lot owner from attempting this rezoning. Since June when the
builder/owner's attorney stated he began reaching out to us neighbors, he has been unable to convince any of
the homeowners to agree to his proposal. Not one.

We previously collected 70 signatures of neighbors that we presented at the prior meeting with no one in favor
of this proposal.

This proposal adds dangerous new traffic elements to the corner of Shea and N. 57th St. The builder's proposed
ingress and egress on Shea itself is actually more dangerous since it will be a relatively blind entry/exit onto
Shea. This stretch of Shea is a major artery with heavy traffic already. There was a death of several individuals
traveling in a car from N. 57th to Shea in the past prior to the population growth we have now. The proposed
ingress/egress in situated in a place where traffic speeds up after the traffic light from N. 56th St.

That the builder states their entrance to their office complex lot will be changed from N.57th St to Shea creates
more danger for drivers on Shea, drivers turning right going east from N.57th St and from drivers trying to exit
the proposed office complex lot. Morris' law firm did not even propose or offer to perform a traffic assessment
impact study that would otherwise would likely prove that their proposed ingress/egress makes the neighbor
more, not less dangerous, for drivers, walkers, and bikers. Their lack of interest in their project's true impact on
traffic and danger to the local walkers and bikers demonstrates a lack of thoughtfulness or consideration for the
unintended damage the office complex would create.

There is no good reason that can be put forward by the builder why they need to erect a 23-car garage on the
property lot. This will inevitably be used for gatherings, parties, events, whether during standard office hours, or
after hours. The builder's attorney conveyed to us at the neighborhood meeting several months ago this space is
multi-use space. Any after-hours parties, gatherings or events hosted by the builder may reasonably include
alcohol consumption and the danger of drunk driving. This introduces an unacceptable risk to our local
neighborhood.

If this rezoning request is granted, then the other four "border lots" along Shea between N.56th St and N. 58th
St, will soon be sold to other builders who will then easily apply for and have their lots rezoned to RO as well.
This would create an unacceptable commercial zone along our streets destroying the neighborhood's appearance
and status. The neighborhood of Paradise Valley must maintain its character and appearance. The City of
Phoenix may have allowed rezoning from RE to RO in other areas of the city, but this area of Paradise Valley
cannot be allowed to be converted to commercial buildings.


Page 236
The builder, Regal American, is an expert luxury home builder and knew or should have known they would
meet homeowner resistance to their proposed rezoning attempt. To deny this is to lie to the community since
this was his initial intention as stated to us at the neighborhood meeting. The builder's attorney claims that there
are no other commercial properties in or near Paradise Valley for his proposed office complex. This is absurd
and simply not true. In addition, the builder's attorney claims that the builder cannot build a single-family home
at the corner of Shea and N. 57th street because it is too busy!!! The irony of this statement should not be lost
on the planning committee. And the builder stated that no one would want to build or buy such a corner
property. This is also simply not true. There are 3-4 new homes that are new construction within the past 3 years
on Shea between Tatum and N. 64th St. The builder does have another option... he can sell the lot. However,
when asked by a neighbor at the local meeting about what his 2nd option would be if he could not obtain
rezoning, Mr. Morris stated that he would build a single-family home there.

Lastly, the neighbors of N. 57th St, N. 58th St. and N 56th St. will be engaging with a land use attorney the
week of November 7. Our rights, our property, our neighborhood, our quality of life will be badly damaged and
negatively impacted by the proposed rezoning request. Our attorney and the firm will vigorously defend our
neighborhood's rights and properties. We have meet with the attorney two weeks ago and will be moving
forward to formally legally block this rezoning attempt.

Sincerely,

Matthew E. Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.





Page 237
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Opposition to rezoning 57th Street and Shea



From: Michele Adler Cohen
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2022 9:44 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Opposition to rezoning 57th Street and Shea

We live on 57th street and are opposed to rezoning on 57th Street and Shea to accommodate a large office building.

Michele and Yaneav Cohen

Get Outlook for iOS [aka.ms]





Page 238
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Opposition to rezone Southeast corner of 57th street



-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Coumides
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 5:27 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Opposition to rezone Southeast corner of 57th street

I oppose the rezoning of 1.37 acres located at the southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard from
RE-43 (One-Family Residence) to R-O.
Andy Coumides
9336 N58 street

Sent from my iPhone





Page 239
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Item Z-43-22-2



From: Brendan Franks
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:59 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Item ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Members,

My name is Brendan Franks, and presently live at 10006 N. 58th St Paradise Valley AZ 85253
[google.com] with my wife Meaghan and our two children ages 3 and 1.

Our property is 9 lots (under .5 miles) away from the subject property/development and want to
make clear we are vehemently opposed to the rezoning effort in our neighborhood.

Our chief concerns focus squarely on two main issues: traffic and safety.

Traffic is already a major concern on Shea both East and West directions at nearly all times of the
day and evening.

While heading North on 57th towards Shea to access the Tatum/Shea commercial corridor, making
a left is a daunting task. In the morning, commuters on Shea are rushed to get to work making hasty
turns and hazardous lane switches, sometimes under traffic lights to inch closer to their destination
at any cost. We see this often next to a school located at 56th and Shea, where speed limits of just
15mph are hardly adhered to. In the evening, we hear drag racing.

Adding just one extra vehicle from the proposed redevelopment will only make this dangerous left
all but impossible. In fact, after purchasing our home, we learned a previous owner’s family was
involved in a fatal accident making this exact left turn (Westbound) at 57th and Shea.

Exiting Shea into our neighborhood isn’t safer, and unfortunately, we know this firsthand. In 2021,
while pregnant, my wife was stopped in the turn lane on Shea and 58th, waiting for a break in traffic
to get home and was sideswiped at 50mph. She was rushed by ambulance to Honor Health
Scottsdale Shea to see if our baby was still alive. Due to the crash, her car was towed away and
needed $15,000 in repairs and $25,000 in emergency medical procedures and monitoring. And yes,
the police were called, and the driver was ticketed for speeding, reckless driving, and failure to
avoid an accident. We still don’t know if this accident inflicted any developmental issues for our
now one-year-old.

After doing some research, we learned the individual who purchased the lot in question has
residential development projects in Paradise Valley south of us. This creates another commuter
drive to the site through our neighborhood of Mountain View, Morning Glory, Sanna, 58th, 57th,

Page 240
and 56th that already have issues with non-residents speeding and snaking through our streets to
avoid Tatum or Scottsdale Rd during high traffic hours while children are walking and waiting at
bus stops. To that point, from 7-9am M-F, only school buses driving Eastbound are permitted to
head South on Morning Glory to reach Doubletree Ranch Rd. With continued speeding and safety
issues, further action was taken by the Paradise Valley Police Department: almost without fail,
there is a marked police SUV that waits on the corner on Mountain View and 57th every weekday
morning. Us neighbors and residents gladly welcome PVPD’s efforts to ensure our safety; adding
more risky rush hour drivers avoiding traffic is not what we want or need. Despite these efforts, the
problem persists.

As a commercial property owner, I know firsthand the operational and ownership attention that a
building of this size needs. Without question, clients, staff, vendors, maintenance, and other
service providers will utilize our neighborhood streets to access the proposed site during the
day. It’s a nonstop carousel to commercial sites; commercial trash, commercial deliveries,
commercial Fedex/UPS, commercial lawn care, janitorial services, etc. Workers at the proposed
site will, from time-to-time, want some fresh air. Shea doesn’t provide that; they will undoubtedly
walk our neighborhoods. This is a major safety issue as strangers will be looking at or into our
homes. The increased vehicular and personnel volume is not what is wanted or needed.

We frequently walk, stroll, and wagon, in the precise area where an increase in traffic would limit
our family neighborhood outings. When we do walk outside, we always go into the neighborhood,
away from Shea. Three sets of close neighbors on 57th and 58th with children drive to our home so
their children will not be hit by speeding cars. We did not ever anticipate having these worries
when we moved here. Had we known we would be adding existing hazards with a new, complex
layer that included the commercialization of our streets, we wouldn’t have moved here 2 years ago.
Simply put, it's too dangerous.

Nighttime use isn’t any better. Just two months ago, we heard a knock on our door in the evening
from a non-resident cutting through our neighborhood. Our mailbox, walking path and flowerpots
in our front yard were destroyed and run over as the driver was speeding and distracted, per my
security cameras. (I opted not to file a police report because the driver was a 17-year-old Chaparral
Senior) His car was totaled, and we incurred $8,000 worth of damage. We were left with a pile of
rubble and worry that they could have plowed into our home. We are living through another
accident just months and steps away from the last one. We were terrified. What if our kids were
outside? Why don’t others respect our speed bumps? Why didn’t he take Scottsdale Rd or Tatum if
you don’t live here? Why do nonresidents continue to speed and snake through our streets?

This incident and problems at night are not isolated. The rules of statistics say more cars, more
accidents, more people, more crime; a harrowing and uncomfortable thought after our
neighborhood has already experienced recurring vehicular tragedy. Last week, on October 29th
2022, there was an armed robbery where a resident was held at gunpoint by a nonresident at the
corner of 61st and Mountain View. It's our understanding, the suspect was thought to be an actual
roofing contractor. The non-stop carousel of commercial contractors previously discussed already
brings crime into our homes. The backyard of the home next door was used as a point of entry;
multiple family homes with children were turned into crime scenes. As it relates to the proposed lot

Page 241
to be redeveloped, we do not have the resources as a neighborhood to fend off bad actors using the
facility late at night as it is intended. We are a neighborhood at risk.

According to LoopNet and CoStar, “go-to” commercial property databases, there is an
overabundance of office space varying in size, building age, rent per square foot, etc. available for
rent at the Tatum Shea and Scottsdale Shea intersections. There are also lots available that currently
conform to the zoning use proposed. Commercial lots do not start until much further down Shea
toward Tatum or Scottsdale Rd, making this a very awkward standalone commercial site, and risks
bringing other commercial sites to existing properties with older homes at nearby street corners,
including our street on 58th and Shea. If one gets zoning approval, others will follow suit.
Commercial real estate likes to be close to other commercial real estate.

The proposed development site at the corner of 57th and Shea, where a home existed until a few
weeks ago, is not the “highest and best use” of this lot, a golden rule in commercial real estate. Our
neighborhood truly cannot stomach another tragedy. This lot is a residential lot, has been
historically, and should remain so in the future. Again, simply put, it really is just too dangerous.
This neighborhood has experienced fatal accidents, mother and fetus trauma, armed robbery, and
persistent negligent driving. We encourage the future use of this site to conform with existing
zoning laws for all the reasons stated above.





Page 242
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2



From: Mindy Long
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 6:27 PM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning Case No: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

To Whom it May Concern:

We would like to continue expressing our concern about the proposed rezoning of the lot on 57th and Shea to
commercial from residential. Zoning rules are meant to preserve neighborhoods, and we are asking you to maintain the
original zoning of this property.

Rezoning to commercial will change the feel of our neighborhood, which many of us have made significant investments
in, and will also likely negatively affect property values and impact the safety of our streets.

A commercial property by nature has more traffic than a residential. Traffic on Shea is already a concern. There was just
a threeͲcar accident with injuries on Oct. 31 between 58th and 57th on Shea. Should we be adding traffic turning in and
out of a commercial enterprise in this area?

Additionally, as proposed, the business’s clients will enter and exit on Shea. Those that want to go west will either park
and travel on 57th St., increasing traffic, go east and make a UͲturn on Shea, increasing traffic, or go east on Shea, then
right onto 58th St. to Mountain View to 56th to get to a light, increasing traffic on our residential streets where we have
children riding bikes and people walking.

Rezoning 57th and Shea to commercial will make it more likely commercial rezoning requests for lots at 56th or 58th and
Shea will be approved or even deeper into our neighborhood. This one change could create a domino effect that erodes
the purpose of a residential zoning.

Additionally, the lawyer for this developer has claimed that the only viable uses of this property are the proposed
development, or a group home (including a halfway house). This claim is inconsistent with numerous newly
constructed, singleͲfamily houses along Shea Blvd. within less than a mile of the sight for this proposed development in
both directions

Further, the lawyer for this developer has employed unethical tactics throughout this process. At the neighborhood
meeting held at Chaparral High School, the lawyer for this developer told attendees that the developer currently had an
offer on the table to sell to an operator of group homes, which if this proposed development isn’t approved, they would
sell to this group home. The lawyer then went on to clarify that a group home may include a halfway house. The
comment was designed to intimidate and create fear among those in opposition of the proposed development, many of
whom were older and would clearly be concerned about the possibility of a halfway house in their
neighborhood. Additionally, the continuance requested at the previous council meeting by the lawyer for this developer
was clearly intended to create confusion and fatigue among opposing neighbors.

This site was acquired by the developer zoned as residential. The developer knew this was a residential property. The
neighborhood is not asking the Council to change this zoning. We are asking the Council to maintain this zoning. The
council has a precedent of declining requests for rezoning and this precedent should be respected. The lot directly
behind this proposed development (at 58th and Shea) was previously denied being rezoned for commercial use. This
precedent should be respected and maintained.

Page 243
Additionally, there is plenty of unoccupied commercial space in the area. We don’t need to rezone residential areas to
accommodate commercial needs.

We have compiled over 70 signed petitions from neighbors opposed to rezoning this location. The residents of this
neighborhood have clearly expressed opposition to this rezoning and the planning commission should respect that the
neighbors clearly do NOT want this proposed development.

Thank you,

Bryan and Mindy Long
10203 N. 57th St.
Paradise Valley, 85253
ͲͲ
Mindy Long
Mindy Long Freelance LLC
Cell: 703Ͳ220Ͳ2672
Office 480Ͳ306Ͳ7177
mindy@mindylong.com





Page 244
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2



From: Santosh Rao
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 7:16 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Cc: Praneeta Rao
Subject: Rezoning Case No: ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

To: City of Phoenix and Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee:


From: Praneeta Rao and Santosh Rao (owners), residing at,10438 N 57th St, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253.

STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED REZONING

The Rezoning proposal is just not about the "Regal American Homes". If this proposal passes, it sets a
precedent for all the properties around to be rezoned. As long-time residents at this address (since 2004),
we have seen a gradual increase in traffic on Shea boulevard. This change will result in a significant
depreciation of home values. PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE.

Our neighborhood is dismayed that this is under consideration. Our opposition is three-fold 1.
Setting precedent for others
2. Depreciation of home values. 3. Increased traffic on Shea.

Thanks you for your consideration and praying for this proposed rezoning to be REJECTED

Regards,

Praneeta & Santosh Rao.





Page 245
Re: Item #4, Z-43-22 rezoning request
My name is Richard Pasquale, I live at 10210 N. 57th St, just five houses away
from the residential parcel in question.
1. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEDICATED TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Our neighborhood is exclusively zoned R-43 for single family homes. The
proposed R-O zoning is contrary to:
x the community master plan,
x the character of the neighborhood,
x and the wishes of the homeowners in this neighborhood.

2. THERE ARE IS NO COMMERCIAL ZONING IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
Attorney Morris has previously exaggerated the extent of non-residential activity
along this portion of Shea Blvd. It is true that there are two places of worship, but
the fact is the fitness facility that he mentioned is to the west some distance,
moreover that facility and the adjacent forthcoming healthcare facility have
caused great and continuing distress among homeowners near there as
discussed in multiple articles in the community newspaper. Similarly, an R-O
zoned office building further west on Shea at 37th St has also caused significant
and continuing chagrin for homeowners there. We urge that this body not foist
similar misery and diminishing property values upon our neighborhood by
approving zoning for a commercial business.


3. REZONING PERMITS ENTIRELY COMMERCIAL LOOKING BUILDINGS
A zoning change is lasting, it’s not just about these proposed buildings. If
rezoned R-O, this owner or future owners could change their use of the proposed
buildings to house multiple commercial office tenants. R-O zoning would also
allow a future owner to later expand, creating a more commercial looking and
higher traffic office building, such as a 25’ tall (two story) office complex, further
ruining the single family home nature of our neighborhood.


4. ANY RESIDENTIAL LOOK OF EVEN THESE BLDGS IS DESTROYED BY
SIGNAGE
Attorney Morris has emphasized the appearance of the proposed buildings,
saying they were designed by a residential architect and are compatible with the
neighborhood. However, all of their renderings omit signage. The appearance of
this parcel would be far different with signage.



Page 246
5. THE SIGN ORDANCE (705) DESTROYS THE “R” IN R-O
As a “Nonresidential activity in a residential district” there are extensive forms of
signs allowed, wrecking any hint of a residential neighborhood.
a. A ground sign 5’ tall
b. Wall signs at a height of up to 15’. Based upon the formula, with the two
buildings roughly extending a combined 300 linear feet on the two streets,
there could be 75 square feet of wall signs
c. A marquee
d. Brightly illuminated signs in our dark sky neighborhood sans street lights.
e. Canopies and awnings with signage.
f. 30% of the windows can be covered with signage.
g. Directional signs with the business name
h. Pedestrian signs
i. Lease signs
j. Temporary signs
k. Moreover the signage code “Flexibility Provisions” (705E), permit
businesses to submit plans for even higher limits on signage

6. SOLO ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE SIGNAGE ISSUE
Concerned that this planning group might approve rezoning regardless of the
universal opposition of the neighborhood, I contacted Attorney Morris’ firm about
signage.

Representing only myself, I had a series of conversations with his firm over
several weeks. I was told the developer would likely want a ground sign, but they
hadn’t decided any specifics about signs. I asked that the parcel’s owner
consider a stipulation that would permit ground, directional, pedestrian, and
sale/lease signage, but exclude signage on the buildings that would be viewable
from the street.

7. “ONLY IF I SUPPORT THE PROJECT”
Eventually I was told that they would only consider a stipulation if I supported the
rezoning in writing. I said I did not support the rezoning, but would being willing
to write letter stating they responded favorably to my suggestion. The property
owner was approached, but refused to agree to any stipulation.

8. ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE SIGNAGE
Still quite worried that the approval bodies might force R-O zoning down the
throat of the neighborhood no matter how much we object, I requested that they
ask the parcel owner to reconsider. While still not supporting the rezoning, I

Page 247
proposed to provide a letter greatly embellishing Regal American’s
cooperativeness if they would agree to a signage stipulation. They did not agree.

9. THERE IS NOTHING RESIDENTIAL ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL
Buildings with commercial signage do not fit in with our neighborhood in any way.
While attorney Morris may attempt to rebut this concern by suggesting that this
owner will likely have only limited signage, such claims are not binding on either
this owner or especially future owners. Without a binding and constrictive
stipulation, there is nothing about this and future R-O uses that is residential. Its
ruining another neighborhood with commercial development.

10. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT ACCOMODATING IN MULTIPLE WAYS
It is not just signage where there is a failure to engage in stipulations that limit
this commercial intrusion into our R-43 neighborhood. There were clear requests
other homeowners made at public meetings, asking that there be no access from
57th Street. Yet the developer’s renderings show a doorway and sidewalk directly
to 57th Street. As a consequence, clients of business(es) there can be expected
park on our quiet residential street. This quiet street is not lined with sidewalks.
Children, adults, and pets go for walks and bicycle down this quiet street on a
regular basis. Commercial traffic creates genuine safety concerns.

11. MORE TRAFFIC THAN HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED IS LIKELY
Attorney Morris has suggested the office building will only be used roughly from 9
to 5. Yet, he has not denied that the property could often be used for receptions
and events in the evening and weekends. The very intent to place the
developer’s high-end automobiles into a massive garage on the property
suggests that this facility could be the site of frequent gatherings with the cars as
a focal point. Such events could draw many client vehicles, with parking for
those clients overflowing into our neighborhood on 57 th and 58th streets. This
means commercial clients and possibly high performance cars zipping up and
down our streets where children and adults are trying to safely stroll.

12. TRAFFIC FOR FUTURE R-O USES WOULD BE EVEN WORSE
A zoning change is lasting, it’s not just about the immediate use proposed.
Attorney Morris strives to minimize the planned parking and traffic from Regal
Homes’ proposed use. If rezoned R-O, this owner or future owners could change
their use of the proposed buildings to house multiple commercial office tenants
which could bring significant vehicle traffic, completely transforming what have
always been safe, quiet streets.



Page 248
13. ECONOMIC VALUE
No member of this board should take deviations from the master plan lightly. Nor
should any member of this board readily dismiss the universal concerns of the
homeowners in our neighborhood. Even though Country Club Acres is a very
small subdivision, we’ve worked hard to invest in our homes in terms of both
creating a neighborhood and creating economic value. Collectively our homes
have a market value far in excess of $100 million. Please do not devalue this
Phoenix neighborhood by deviating from R-43 zoning.

14. NON-DESTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVES
For this parcel attorney Morris emphasizes that a skilled residential architect has
designed the buildings they propose with a goal is to impress customers with the
quality of their firm’s construction work and that the parcel will have landscaping
to help shield the property from Shea Blvd. Well, an attractive design, quality
construction, and landscaping would equally assure that a residential home can
again be successfully placed on that very same parcel. Moreover, as a single
family home, this parcel fronts 57th Street, not Shea Blvd. It faces an existing
multimillion dollar home, nearly 6,000 square feet in size (10438 N 57 th St).

There is a double-digit vacancy rate for existing office space in Phoenix. There is
no reason to destroy our neighborhood with this request for a commercial office
when there is already plenty of office space available in non-residential areas. If
the applicant needs new construction of an office, there are ample properties
available that are already properly zoned for that purpose.




Page 249
Nayeli Sanchez Luna

Subject: FW: Rezoning of Z-43-22-2




From: Matthew Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2022 7:44 AM
To: PDD Long Range Planning
Subject: Rezoning of ZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2


Many of us neighbors met with Regal American and their attorneys, Jason Morris and Alex Hayes on Tuesday
Sept 27 at Chapparal High School to listen to their justification for desiring rezoning the property in question.
Here is a synopsis of Jason Morris’ best arguments:



x It’ll benefit the neighborhood/local community to have a residential office

x It will only be a 1 story building

x Since Shea is an arterial roadway, it is “inappropriate” to build a single-family home.

x To reduce the risk the lot will be used for straight commercial use

x It’ll only be showroom office for Regal, Even though their main build are by Lincoln, and Chapparal Rd

x Frontage roads on Shea are used to protect primary residential homes

x Access will only be off Shea

x Avi (the owner of Regal American) spent a lot of money on this

x It will not impact traffic

x If you don’t allow us to rezone our second choice will build an Airbnb or group home

x There is a lack of alternatives



None of these meets the burden of a luxury well-seasoned home builder, who knowingly purchased a lot, on the
extremely busy corner of Shea and 57th St, and then regretting the purchase because of its location, and then
trying to force through a rezoning to R-O, to the detriment of the neighbors because of his ill-conceived
purchase.

This is a classic case of Caveat Emptor, the principle in commerce that the buyer alone is responsible for
assessing the quality of a purchase before buying. Avi/Regal American knew full well there would be a very

Page 250
realistic uphill challenge to any rezoning, if that was even his original intention prior to buying the lot. More
likely, he bought the lot to build a home, but then realized he may not be able to maximize profits, so he
decided to make it an office. Except he doesn’t have zoning. Avi and his attorney failed to equally consider the
option that he is also free to sell the lot. He is under no obligation to actually build anything. He is free to sell it.
That property has been bought and sold many times, ergo, plenty of potential buyers Avi can sell to.

One person, Avi Azoulay/Regal American, does not get to force a zoning change because he did not due his due
diligence before buying the lot, and now wishes to change the landscape of the area. Too bad for him. We live
here, He does not. If he wants a showroom for his clients, there is PLENTY of commercial real estate, near his
home in PV, in other areas of PVR, the Shea corridor, and so on. If they do not like the commercial real estate
available currently, that is again, not our problem. That is his problem he is trying to make into ours. In his
mind, he bought a dud, and now is trying to make us pay for it. He wants profit at our expense because of his
poor business decision.

Morris had the temerity to paradoxically say in the same breath that the lot is not fit for a family home because
the area is too commercial, (yet many home exist along Shea including new builds on Shea itself within the last
3 years), and yet because there isn’t enough commercial property for a showroom fit for Avi/Regal, they need
this property to be changed from RE to RO for their selfish benefit, regardless of the homeowners.

We don’t care how much money Avi has put into it. That is his problem, not ours.

We don’t care if the office won’t be higher than 25 feet or have a cool modern look. All these details are
distractions. We simply do not want an office building with an enormous and out of place 23 car garage in a
neighborhood of million-dollar homes. This proposal anyway if far away from his typical site of construction on
Lincoln and Chapparal. Why then put his office here?

It is irrelevant the access will be off Shea. No one single family lot property on the south side of Shea has
access directly onto Shea because it is dangerous. All access to Shea from the southside are into city streets, or
small frontage roads. Frontage roads exist to protect the family homeowners from the heavy arterial traffic of
Shea…when Sheawas built in the 1980s. The traffic is so far worse now, and the proposed Shea access to
Regal’s office project is extremely dangerous, creates traffic slowdowns, adds to traffic and endangers the
bikers, walkers and drivers who live in the area. He does not live in the area; neither does Morris so the impact
to them is dismissible.

The current zoning is in place to specifically protect the character of the neighborhood and the intentions of
homeowners and prevent a lot owner who does not live on the street to ignore the impact of a bad business
decision that he regrets. Morris’ argument that “we’re the good guys because RO will be so good for you,
because if it stays zoned RE that’s bad, but if its RO it’ll protect it from being flipped to commercial zoning, in
pure nonsense. It’s RE now which is actually good and it is that way to protect it from predatory attempts like
his to change it. Zoning rules are meant to PRESERVE neighborhoods. You'd be surprised to learn that the
Morris’ firm actually wholeheartedly agrees with us neighbors that single family residential zoning is very
important to preserve. Is that actually true???

Morris’ legal firm, which is trying currently to convince the council and us neighbors (who they wish to
financially injure with his office complex project) that the rezoning from RE to RO is for the good of the
neighborhood, that it will add value and good optics to the neighborhood. "Rezoning helps the neighborhood, it
adds value, it adds progress, and benefits the greater good", Morris argues. All these arguments are completely
hypocritical because Morris' junior partner, Alex Hayes, Esq., who was present at the meeting, and his firm of
Withey Morris are currently in a legal battle in our state legislature over HB# 2674. This bill would eliminate
municipal zoning laws allowing conversion of single family lots to become something else, such as multi-unit
complexes. Withey Morris is fighting to not let this bill become law, because they wish to preserve the zoning

Page 251
laws for single family lots! Isn’t the irony rich? The March/April edition of AZRE lays out why Alex Hayes,
and his law firm want to preserve the zoning laws, protecting single family home lots, because zoning changes
have a “substantial impact on the look and feel” of residential neighborhoods.

Our street, our neighborhood is vehemently against this attempted bulldozing of the zoning rule, to destroy our
community, to put an ugly multi-unit office complex with a 23 car garage on the corner lot of a dangerous
intersection that will only add to traffic, the risk of accidents, and negatively impact the look and feel and home
values that Avi/Regal could care less about.

This attempt at rezoning should be voted down for TWO main reasons:

1. We have 59 local homeowners who oppose it. We have only 1 lot owner who is for it (Regal) and no one
else on the street supports him. That is an overwhelming majority of those that actually live on the street who do
not want this. One lot owner, a Johnny-come-lately, does not get to tell the other 59 that he gets his way because
he regrets buying the lot and now thinks he cannot build a family home on it. That argument fails also because
all corner homes on Shea have families who in them.

2. Avi/Regal failed to do his due diligence prior to buying the lot. It is not our problem that he spent a lot of
money on the lot and now changed his mind and does not want to build a family home. Now he is trying to
change the character selfishly. He failed to heed the classic business advice that he knew himself quite well: Let
the buyer beware. And his attorney subtlety threatens us that if this rezoning does not occur, his second choice
will be a home for Airbnb or a group home, for possibly the drug addicted, or even sex offenders. This is all you
need to know that Morris and the client he represents. Disgusting.



Sincerely,

Matthew E. Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.
480-272-0499 cell





Page 252
From: Adrian G Zambrano
To: Adrian G Zambrano
Subject: Z-43-22-2 - 2022-10-12 - Opposition - Steve Mooney
Date: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 5:00:38 PM


From: Steve Mooney
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 2:39 PM
To: Council District 2 PCC
Subject: Rezoning of Parcel on Shea Blvd and 57th Street

I strongly oppose the rezoning of the parcel on Shea Blvd and 57th street.
Commercial development in this neighborhood of Multi- million dollar homes is not acceptable. I
understand that the city wants to realize substantial revenue from this project.
Our home values will be effected as well as additional traffic congestion to Shea Blvd, the main
East/West
Corridor to this neighborhood.

I respectfully request you deny the re-zoning application for the parcel along Shea Blvd. and 57th
Street.

Please reply to your intention in this matter.

Steve and Mary Jane Mooney
9840 N 55th Way
Scottsdale, AZ. 85253
*******




Page 253
         




( ) $
!" (  !
#(  '
  %# !##
200 "# "# #!#
'  85003

#! 20* 2022

+ $!# !  ! ) -43-22

", $

 $!!#( % # 6120  $# &  !" ( ,  %  # !#$#(
# !%& # " ! # $ $ ## " !"  # !!  57
 ,

" !# &$   & # # # !,  $( "$!# #" !#
   # " # #  $" # #" $ ##,

"  ! # ! $# &# ( $"#" ! !",


!(





!" (




Page 254
              




( ) $
!" (  !
#(  '
  % #  !##
200 "# "# #!#
'  85003

 #! 20* 2022

+ $ !# !  ! ) -43-22

! ", ( ) $

  # $!!# !"# # 6421  !& !% !" ( ,

!, )$(  " # % "# %! # ! " & !#  # !!  57

 ,

 & $ " !#( !##$!(    &$    # # ##
!!, # #  #!  * # "" %!(  # $# #" #(   $
## "#,    $ "$ !#  #" !#  #" $! "  % " #! &"# 
#( ! !( $ $" # "# #!"  !#",



!(





$"# "




Page 255
Page 256
       




+  , ' 
$% +   $
&+ ! ! *
     (!" & "$& &
433 %& % &! &$&
! *  :7335

"&$ 43- 4344

. '""!$& !$  $ ,!   065044

!! &$ !!

+  % ' &    ( & 8358  !' & ) ! $% + /  
& !!) $ & & !( $%%   ( $() & " % !$ & "$!"!% )
' ! & !$ $ ! 79
&$&    !'($/  ) & &! )    (! +
%'""!$& !$ & "$!&/  " %   %"&! % $ $& + ! "$ )&  &!"0#'&+
%&$'&'$ && )!' $   $% ) !! !$ && !$ $ !&/

% ! & &$ $"!$&%   !($ +!'& ! & ) ' & $& + &% & &+" !
!'" + && )  $% ('%   & !($ %&&% ! & !$!!/  
'$$ &+ (  *& &!  &( $     )!' $+  &! % &% ' % !""!% &!
 !&$ &$ % & (  #'$&$% "$!&/ & %  *&$+ %&$%%'   $&  &!*
(  $$  & )& + !$%/ % '   '% )!'   )! &! &!
& $/

%& $%









Page 257
Page 258
Page 259
Page 260
Page 261
Page 262
Page 263
ATTACHMENT F




Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
Z-43-22-2
Revised November 30, 2022

Date of VPC Meeting November 7, 2022
Request From RE-43
Request To R-O
Proposed Use Residential office
Location Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
VPC Recommendation Approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A)
with additional stipulations as discussed
VPC Vote 9-5

VPC DISCUSSION & RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS:

This case was continued from the October 3, 2022 Paradise Valley VPC meeting.

Jennifer Hall left the meeting during this item due to a conflict of interest, bringing the
quorum to 14 members.

22 members of the public registered to speak on this item, 10 in opposition and 12 in
support.

Staff Presentation:

Mr. Zambrano provided an overview of the rezoning case Z-43-22-2, describing the
location, request, surrounding land uses, existing zoning, and General Plan Land Use
Map designation. Mr. Zambrano provided background on adopted policy plans that the
project would support. Mr. Zambrano then described the proposal, discussing the
proposed site plan and elevations. Mr. Zambrano noted letters of opposition and
support received since the last Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Zambrano
concluded by sharing the staff findings, recommendation of approval and the proposed
stipulations, noting that the date for general conformance of date stamped plans was
changed due to updated plans the applicant provided which reduced the size of the
detached garage, and an added stipulation restricting the size of the detached garage.

Applicant Presentation:

Jason Morris, representing the applicant with Withey Morris, PLC, introduced himself
and described the architect of this project, Drewett Works, as being an award-winning
architecture firm in the Phoenix metro area. Mr. Morris went on to provide an overview
200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 264
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

of the site, surrounding commercial uses and the intent of the R-O district as a buffer
between arterial streets and residential uses. Mr. Morris then shared the City of Phoenix
44th Street Corridor Residential Office Study, emphasizing that it acts as a buffer
between arterial streets and residential. Mr. Morris shared examples of residential office
developments and how they function and indicated alternative uses, such as an Airbnb
and group home, that could be developed under the existing zoning, which he stated
would be more economically viable adjacent to an arterial street. Mr. Morris then
summarized the purpose of the detached garage, noting it functioned more as an
accessory structure than as an enlarged garage and would only be able to hold up to
four vehicles. Mr. Morris discussed the landscape plan, noting that the site would be
landscaped well above what a similar residential site would be landscaped, and then
shared renderings to emphasize the architecture and landscaping proposed. Mr. Morris
continued, providing an overview of their neighborhood outreach since submitting the
rezoning application, noting that the petition in support of the project has been updated
from 136 to 148 signatures. Mr. Morris emphasized that vehicular access would only be
from Shea Boulevard and will be a low trip generating use with only four to eight
employees, noting that group homes generate more traffic than the proposed use. Mr.
Morris indicated there are nine options for legal U-turns if a driver needed to turn right
from 57th Street onto Shea Boulevard in order to make a U-turn to go the opposite
direction. Mr. Morris argued that there is no evidence that R-O zoning has a negative
impact on property values, noting a case on 37th Street and Shea Boulevard that was
rezoned to R-O in 2018 and lots located to the south that are at or above the overall
gain in property values within the Phoenix metro area. Mr. Morris clarified that the
proposed use is not a commercial use and that they have designed the buildings to
ensure it is not a characteristically office or non-residential building and that they have
the same character as a contemporary residential building. Mr. Morris concluded by
summarizing the project benefits.

Questions from the Committee:

Robert Goodhue asked about the pedestrian access from 57th Street suggesting that
customers or visitors can park on 57th Street and then access the office building using
that pedestrian access. Mr. Morris responded that the pedestrian access is something
they will remove because they are not relying upon that access.

Regina Schmidt asked if there are overhead electric lines on Shea Boulevard. Mr.
Morris responded that he does not believe there are, but he believes there are large
lines further west. Ms. Schmidt clarified that it would impact tree canopy coverage if
there were power lines there. Ms. Schmidt asked what would happen to the property if it
were rezoned to R-O and the economy crashed, whether it remain vacant or if it could
be converted to a home. Mr. Morris responded that the first stipulation is for general
conformance to the site plan, so what is shown on the site plan is what must be built,
and if there were any deviation from the site plan, they would have to go back through a
public hearing process.

Chair Gubser stated that looking at Google Earth, there are no power lines along the
site.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 265
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Ms. DeMoss read a quote from a letter from a concerned neighbor by the name of
Matthew Karlovsky indicating that Mr. Morris did not propose or offer to perform a traffic
impact study. Mr. Morris responded that Mr. Karlovsky has been at the forefront of the
opposition and stated that he did not ask any questions at their meeting and instead
chose to send letters to the City. Mr. Morris stated they do have a trip generation study
which they have shared with the City, noting that it shows zero trips on 57th Street and
that a single-family home would have more traffic impact on 57th Street than this
project. Ms. DeMoss read another quote from the letter, indicating that the building is a
multi-use space. Ms. DeMoss asked if it was going to be anything other than a
residential office. Mr. Morris responded that he was unsure what Mr. Karlovsky meant
but is sure he would be speaking during public comment. Ms. DeMoss clarified that it is
not a multi-use space. Mr. Morris affirmed. Ms. DeMoss asked if the detached garage
will only ever have four cars, even though it is slated for 23 cars. Mr. Morris responded
that he is unsure where that number came from but assured there would be no more
than four cars in the garage and would be happy to stipulate that. Ms. DeMoss asked if
Mr. Morris indicated they would build a group home or Airbnb if the property could not
be rezoned. Mr. Morris responded that those are the two most likely uses of this site
under the existing zoning. Ms. DeMoss expressed her concerns of the applicant
threatening to build a group home or Airbnb if they are unable to rezone the property.
Mr. Morris clarified those are the alternative uses and clarified that they were not being
threatening. Mr. Morris stated that the original owner that sold the property had
attempted to build a single-family home when the market was much better and was
stuck in the middle. Mr. Morris clarified they wanted to be upfront about what the
allowed uses are. Ms. DeMoss indicated that there is a lot of opposition from neighbors.

Mr. Wise commented that individuals that lived in the same homes as one another
wrote a letter and signed both petitions, which gave the appearance that there was a
higher number of people opposing the project than there really is.

Ms. Gerst asked what the required setback is between the garage and the neighbors
for R-O and for RE-43. Mr. Morris responded that RE-43 setbacks require 40 to 50 feet
in the front yard, 30 feet on the side yards, and 40 feet in the rear yard. Mr. Morris
stated that R-O can be closer at 20 feet in the front yard, 10 feet on the side yards, and
25 feet in the rear yard. Mr. Morris clarified that the building was shifted further from the
south, exceeding RE-43 setbacks. Ms. Gerst asked how close the buildings would be to
neighbors on either side. Mr. Morris responded they are about 20 feet on the south side
and about 30+ feet on the east side. Ms. Gerst clarified that they are 10 feet closer to
the south side than RE-43 setbacks. Mr. Morris responded that the detached garage is
closer, but the primary building is further away. Ms. Gerst asked if the detached garage
could be moved so that it is at least 30 feet away. Mr. Morris responded that they are
willing to look at the site plan and be flexible. Ms. Gerst asked about what the applicant
has done with the entrance way on 57th Street. Mr. Morris responded that they agreed
to take away the entrance on 57th Street. Ms. Gerst asked if that was part of the site
plan now. Mr. Morris responded affirmatively. Ms. Gerst asked when the setbacks
could be implemented to be like RE-43 setbacks. Mr. Morris responded if there was a
stipulation, it would be addressed during site plan review.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 266
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Ms. Petersen asked if those who signed the petition of support live if the adjacent area,
as she had noticed many were not in the adjacent area and were from a different zip
code. Ms. Petersen asked how those signatures were collected. Mr. Morris responded
they went through the Shea Boulevard corridor to the north and south to garner support
and noted there are addresses in the immediate area as well that signed the petition of
support.

Anita Mortensen commended the applicant for going out more than 1000 feet to get
signatures. Ms. Mortensen asked how many signatures are within 600 feet of the
project. Mr. Morris was unsure but stated he could try to break it down. Ms. Mortensen
indicated there were quite a few signatures from individuals outside of 600 feet. Ms.
Mortensen stated she also has a concern with the language that was on the letter to
obtain signatures as well as having individuals from the same household sign.

Alex Popovic asked how many people showed up for the community outreach since
the last Village Planning Committee meeting. Mr. Morris responded that since the last
meeting, they have had interaction or meetings with 24 additional members of the
community. Mr. Popovic asked if those interactions were conducted in-person or
virtually, and what the outcome was. Mr. Morris responded that they were mostly in-
person, and it was an attempt to see what modifications could be made to mitigate
concerns of nearby neighbors. Mr. Popovic asked if the site plan was changed as a
result, indicating the garage seems smaller and highlighting the discussion about getting
rid of the pathway on 57th Street. Mr. Morris responded that the landscaping was
enhanced along the southern boundary by including larger trees. Mr. Popovic asked if
the setbacks could be changed to be more like RE-43 setbacks along the south. Mr.
Morris responded that they could as long as they could meet their circulation goals. Mr.
Popovic indicated that staff has already approved this as the Committee is a
recommending body. Mr. Popovic stated that the applicant may need to compromise a
little bit more, acknowledging how much they have already compromised.

Chair Gubser clarified that staff has not approved this case, but rather is providing a
recommendation for approval.

Ms. Gerst asked if a group home or Airbnb would be permitted in R-O zoning. Mr.
Morris responded that he understands that R-O zoning would permit a group home but
not an Airbnb.

Ms. Sepic referred to the examples of residential office that Mr. Morris had shared and
indicated from her personal experience that she believes residential office has really
improved corridors along Indian School Road, converting dilapidated lots into attractive
single-family home style offices. Ms. Sepic agreed that the applicant should provide an
additional 10 feet of setback along the south to provide additional privacy to the
neighbors, limit access to Shea Boulevard and remove the pedestrian access from 57th
Street. Ms. Sepic commended the heavy landscaping and indicated she would prefer a
limited office space over an Airbnb.

Ms. Schmidt asked how many group homes are in the area currently. Mr. Morris
responded that there are three on 57th Street. Ms. Schmidt clarified if the property was

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 267
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

rezoned, it would be able to become a group home by right, but technically not due to
the zoning spacing requirements between group homes. Mr. Morris clarified that
spacing requirements only apply to group homes with more than six residents, which
requires a Use Permit, but a group home with six or less residents is allowed by right.

Mr. Sparks asked if the property located to the south is a residence, group home or
Airbnb. Mr. Morris responded they do know it is not owner-occupied and is a rental, but
they do not know the nature of the rental.

Public Comment:

Guy Labelle introduced himself as a neighbor on 58th Street and Mountain View Road
opposed to the project. Mr. Labelle expressed concerns with the office being for a major
residential developer rather than an office for a homeowner, and the traffic associated
with it. Mr. Labelle also expressed concerns with deceived support of the project due to
the petition language referring to short term rentals. Mr. Labelle stated that it is
impossible to make a U-turn on Shea Boulevard between 56th Street and 64th Street
and is concerned that traffic will circulate through the neighborhood to get to the traffic
light on 56th Street.

Bryan Long introduced himself as a neighbor opposed to the project. Mr. Long
expressed concerns with the method the applicant used to get signatures of support on
the petition. Mr. Long indicated there was a similar rezoning case near this property on
58th Street that was denied due to similar concerns and expressed concerns with that
case coming back if this request was approved. Mr. Long stated that there are
commercial and office uses more appropriately located on 56th Street, and that Mr.
Morris’ claims are misleading, indicating that there was a single-family home on the
property when it was purchased. Mr. Long clarified that there is not a church across
57th Street but rather a single-family home. Mr. Long argued that this property is within
three of Scottsdale Unified School District’s very best public schools which would keep
people interested in the property for single-family use. Mr. Long stated he works in the
same industry as the applicant and that the size of the building is much larger than what
would be required for three or four employees. Mr. Long believed Mr. Morris had made
a threat at the neighborhood meeting that his client would accept an offer to develop a
group home, including a halfway house, on the property if it were not rezoned to R-O.

Matthew Karlovsky introduced himself as a neighbor opposed to the project. Mr.
Karlovsky expressed concerns with the number of houses along 57th Street compared
to the number of signatures on the petition of support, indicating the signatures on the
petition are from residents outside of this neighborhood. Mr. Karlovsky noted that many
speakers listed to speak in support of the project have a personal relationship or
partnership with the developer. Mr. Karlovsky rebutted Mr. Morris’ argument, noting that
four new homes were built along Shea Boulevard near 61st Place within the last two to
three years. Mr. Karlovsky added that Shea Boulevard is too busy for a single-family
home is hypocritical because a residential office would make it busier. Mr. Karlovsky
stated that he has never met with or been contacted by Mr. Morris, and that Regal
American built his home six lots south of this project, yet he has not been contacted by
anyone personally. Mr. Karlovsky noted that the application materials dated August 23,

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 268
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

2022, show a 23-car garage, claiming Mr. Morris’ statements are false. Mr. Karlovsky
argued that vehicular access on Shea Boulevard would be dangerous due to speeds at
which vehicles travel and that single-family homes along Shea Boulevard have frontage
streets. Mr. Karlovsky indicated that the property rezoned to residential office on 37th
Street is not within Paradise Valley, and that there is collectively over 100 million dollars’
worth of property value on 56th, 57th, 58th Street that is at risk. Mr. Karlovsky argued
that indicating a single-family home would not sell on this property is a false claim
because it is a very popular place to live. Mr. Karlovsky noted that a prior resident and
her two sons were killed in a traffic accident turning right from 57th Street onto Shea
Boulevard when there was much less traffic in 1999, indicating the traffic is much worse
now. Mr. Karlovsky reiterated that the 136 people who signed the petition of support do
not have any vested interested in the neighborhood. Mr. Karlovsky concluded by
expressing concerns with the detached garage being used for client purposes after
hours and indicated he would like to donate the rest of his time to Nick Labadie, a
Senior Planner at Rose Law Group, that the neighborhood has hired to fight this
rezoning request.

Bimal Merchant introduced himself as a concerned neighbor on 57th Street and
Mountain View Road. Mr. Merchant expressed concerns with traffic and unwanted
attention due to his two young daughters within the neighborhood and indicated most
neighbors he has spoken to have the same concerns. Mr. Merchant also expressed
concerns with future properties being rezoned if this rezoning request was approved.
Mr. Merchant echoed concerns with the those who signed the petition of support not
being affected by this rezoning request.

John Brown introduced himself as a resident that lives nearby on Mockingbird Lane
and a friend of the developer, in support of the project. Mr. Brown stated he owns
buildings like this on major arterial streets in other cities and that he understands that
the developer is trying to make the highest and best use for the property. Mr. Brown
argued that as a developer and as a homeowner, he would never live or build a home
on Shea Boulevard. Mr. Brown believes it would be the greatest use for the lot and
given that traffic will be moved from 57th Street and kept on Shea Boulevard and that it
would be a benefit for the neighborhood, for the developer and for the City.

Rebecca Segev introduced herself as a resident of Paradise Valley near 68th Street
and Mockingbird Place in support of the project. Ms. Segev clarified that the request is
for residential office, not for commercial zoning. Ms. Segev argued that this is an
opportunity to beautify Shea Boulevard since many people want to build there. Ms.
Segev indicated she does not believe this will lower any property values since it will be
well-designed. Ms. Segev argued that there would only be a few employees there at a
time so she does not see that as an issue and emphasized that the purpose of the
design is to showcase what the developer can build. Ms. Segev concluded by reiterating
that the project would complement Shea Boulevard.

Mehul Patel introduced himself as a neighbor on 60th Place and Mountain View Road
in support of the project. Mr. Patel shared that the developer built his home and
complemented his work. Mr. Patel stated that he lives next to a short-term rental
property and that he does not want to see other residential properties in the

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 269
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

neighborhood turning into them. Mr. Patel argued that a property on Shea Boulevard
would not have a residential home on it that a family would move into and indicated it
makes sense to him to have a nice office there. Mr. Patel believed it would beautify that
corner and would be a nice entry point into that street that would increase property
values. Mr. Patel shared that he has known the developer for many years and believes
he would keep to his word in keeping it a small neighborhood office to showcase his
homes.

Richard Pasquale introduced himself as a neighbor opposed to the project. Mr.
Pasquale stated the neighborhood is dedicated to residential properties and R-O zoning
is not consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map designation or with the character
of the neighborhood. Mr. Pasquale noted that the tennis club Mr. Morris mentioned is
outside of the neighborhood, and that the senior living properties mentioned are large,
luxury single-family homes with no signage. Mr. Pasquale shared that the neighborhood
consists of quiet residential streets which are not lined with sidewalks and that children,
adults and pets go on walks along those streets. Mr. Pasquale expressed concerns with
what future office would look like on the property and that the entry could go back onto
57th Street with signage and larger buildings in the future since there is no guarantee
that the stipulations will never be removed. Mr. Pasquale was concerned with traffic
coming through the neighborhood streets and creating a safety concern. Mr. Pasquale
also noted that this is a dark-sky neighborhood with no streetlights, arguing that lighting
from commercial signs would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Pasquale indicated that the renderings show a building which appears residential
but omits the proposed signage. Mr. Pasquale requested that Regal American stipulate
to limited signage but stated that they refused. Mr. Pasquale echoed concerns of
property values. Mr. Pasquale echoed that the property has not been vacant a long time
and that there was previously a home on it that was demolished. Mr. Pasquale argued
the same quality of design and landscaping could be used to build a new home there,
like other new homes on Shea Boulevard. Mr. Pasquale concluded that this lot was
purchased for 0.9 million dollars less than a smaller parcel four lots away, arguing that a
home built on the property could still make a profit even at a lower price than non-corner
lots.

Ronny Urman introduced himself as resident of Paradise Valley on 56th Street in
support of the project. Mr. Urman argued that the hours of operation are during normal
business hours, indicating that traffic would remain the same and that the residential
office would not have a big impact on traffic. Mr. Urman complemented the projects of
Regal American Homes and argued that they are beautifying Paradise Valley. Mr.
Urman concluded stating that they all care about the neighborhood and that he is in
support of improving this empty lot as proposed.

Julie Linaman introduced herself as a resident in support of the project. Ms. Linaman
echoed the complements on Regal American’s design and was impressed with the
thoughtful design being adjacent to a residential neighborhood, including vehicular
access restricted to Shea Boulevard. Ms. Linaman stated the applicant has made every
effort to design the office to look like a residence and agreed that this would be the best
use for this property. Ms. Linaman argued that it is not realistic to believe there would be
interest in a single-family home at this location at this price point.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 270
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022


David Martin introduced himself as a resident of Paradise Valley in support of the
project. Mr. Martin shared that he moved into the neighborhood because he was
impressed with how nice it was and bought a 40-million-dollar home on Morning Glory
Road, indicating he has a vested interest in the neighborhood and in improving this lot.
Mr. Martin believed that a single-family home built on a lot like this would be utilized
primarily as an Airbnb. Mr. Martin countered others’ arguments of opposition, indicating
they were exaggerated or false.

Joe Colborne introduced himself as a neighbor on 56th Street in support. Mr. Colborne
was surprised at the level neighbors were attacking the applicant. Mr. Colborne echoed
that the arguments of opposition are exaggerations. Mr. Colborne indicated the property
in question is on Shea Boulevard, which is noisy and contrary to the argument of a quiet
neighborhood. Mr. Colborne argued that those who hired a lawyer could have easily
bought the property and turned it into a park. Mr. Colborne complemented the design of
the building and believed traffic is a very minimal concern and argued that the property
owner has a right to propose other uses that would be best for them. Mr. Colborne
agreed that if the property were developed as a single-family home, short-term rental
developers would likely seek to purchase it.

Jack Biltis introduced himself as a friend of the applicant and resident of Paradise
Valley on Doubletree Ranch Road in support of the project. Mr. Biltis believed this is
what R-O zoning was designed for. Mr. Biltis believed the opposition mainly came from
two former friends, Mr. Karlovsky, and the developer, being aggravated with each other
about notice of this project. Mr. Biltis believed they should come together to come up
with some compromises, noting that Regal American has made compromises already.

Lissa Erickson introduced herself as a neighbor on 58th Street opposed to the project.
Ms. Erickson shared that a new generation of young families are moving into the
neighborhood, many of whom stroll by and play on 56th, 57th and 58th Street. Ms.
Erickson noted that the neighborhood has unanimously voiced opposition to previous
rezoning efforts to maintain the tranquility and quality of life in their low-density
community. Ms. Erickson expressed concerns with the effect this rezoning request
would have on their quality of life, property values and safety for families and children in
relation to traffic. Ms. Erickson concluded that non-resident drivers do not obey the
street speed limits and stated that profit should not come at the cost of their community.

Brendan Franks introduced himself as a neighbor in opposition to the project. Mr.
Franks stated that the proposed R-O zoned property would be a commercial property
and stated that as a commercial property owner he knows commercial services extend
beyond normal business hours. Mr. Franks argued this business is selling to consumers
and that consumer sales extend beyond normal business hours, specifically in real
estate. Mr. Franks cited a recent occurrence of a non-resident speeding and texting
while driving that drove into their mailbox, flowerbeds, and front yard, causing $8,000 in
damages.

Meaghan Franks introduced herself as a neighbor in opposition to the project. Ms.
Franks expressed concerns with safety in the neighborhood if this project were to be

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 271
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

built. Ms. Franks shared they had learned a previous homeowner was involved in a fatal
accident, and that she was also involved in a sideswipe accident from a commercial
vehicle that was servicing their neighborhood, driving at 50 miles per hour, while she
was pregnant and sitting in the turn lane on Shea Boulevard and 58th Street. Ms.
Franks shared she was rushed to the hospital to see if their baby was alive, and that
she now has a one-year-old child and is still unsure if the accident may have caused
any developmental issues. Ms. Franks argued that Shea Boulevard is very unsafe, that
she has no interest in the architectural design or lush landscaping, referencing the
current water shortage, and expressed her major concerns with safety.

Patrick Van den Bossche introduced himself as a neighbor on 57th Street opposed to
the project. Mr. Van den Bossche stated that all neighbors on 56th, 57th and 58th Street
are opposed to the project for the reasons previously stated. Mr. Van den Bossche
clarified they are not opposed to building on the property, but rather they are opposed to
rezoning it.

Nick Labadie, Senior Planner with Rose Law Group, clarified that no one in opposition
to the project is inferring that the applicant does not build great homes and that they
would in fact welcome the applicant to build one of their great homes on this property.
Mr. Labadie stated that five homes have recently sold facing onto Shea Boulevard
within 600 feet of the subject site. Mr. Labadie argued that the majority of those in
support do not live nearby and that office is not a residential use. Mr. Labadie stated the
buildings are well-designed, but the proposed use is not in line with the character of the
neighborhood. Mr. Labadie indicated the setbacks as shown on the site plan are not
adequate and would be much larger if it were a home, and further stated there would be
fewer people coming onto the property if it were a home. Mr. Labadie argued that the
zoning is not something that can be taken away and that although they are stipulated to
the site plan, they are not stipulated to the use, indicating that the zoning allows for
other uses that would have heavier traffic. Mr. Labadie stated that Mr. Morris’ comments
are misleading, including the notion of a short-term rental use on this property. Mr.
Morris indicated that the neighbors are not happy with how this application has been
dealt with and that there has been no real effort to work with them. Mr. Labadie further
argued that a trip generation study is not a traffic study and concluded that his client,
Mr. Karlovsky, does not have any animosity with the applicant, and in fact lives in a
home built by the applicant, noting the misleading tactics used.

Applicant Response to Public Comment:

Mr. Morris responded that the opposition from Mr. Karlovsky appears to be personal
based on what was heard. Mr. Morris first addressed Mr. Labadie’s comments, stating
that call centers and veterinary clinics are permitted in the R-O zoning district, and
assumed he was looking at the C-O zoning district. Mr. Morris argued that the notion
this area is too busy for residential office but not for a single-family home seems
contradicting. Mr. Morris stated that he had looked at all recent sales and would like to
request the locations of all the homes mentioned that were recently sold along Shea
Boulevard. Mr. Morris indicated that the only homes along Shea Boulevard that have
recently been sold are protected by a frontage road. Mr. Morris clarified that the uses on
the site would be limited to residential office. Mr. Morris further clarified that they are

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 272
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

limited to what is being shown on the site plan, and if there is a change from the site
plan, they would be required to go through another public hearing process. Mr. Morris
stated that there was an exhibit that showed a large garage without any other uses but
indicated that was never the intent. Mr. Morris stated that the architect, having worked
with luxury homes, thought the detached garage was for a car collection. Mr. Morris
expressed his willingness to stipulate the detached garage to a maximum of four
vehicles. Mr. Morris stated that his client has been flexible in all aspects and is going
well beyond what would be required of a single-family home. Mr. Morris noted that the
property was purchased at the height of the real estate market and was sold at a loss
because it could not be utilized for a single-family home. Mr. Morris clarified that the
property was purchased with the intent to build an Airbnb or group home if the R-O use
did not work, and that the mention of those uses was meant to be transparent rather
than a threat. Mr. Morris further stated that those uses are not unfamiliar to this
neighborhood, as there are three existing group homes in the area. Mr. Morris
questioned the signatures on the petition of opposition, noting that two individuals that
signed the petition were misled to believe that the application was for Airbnb’s and
group homes and that requested their signatures be retracted from the petition. Mr.
Morris concluded that this site is an example of what R-O zoning was meant for, as a
buffer between an arterial street and residential.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

Mr. Sparks motioned to recommend approval of Z-43-22-2, per the staff
recommendation. Mr. Popovic seconded the motion.

Discussion:

Mr. Goodhue stated that if the application fails, it would be subject to a short-term
rental or group home, which the Committee and City cannot control as they are
authorized by the State. Mr. Goodhue proposed additional stipulations as follows: 1)
The developer shall remove the pedestrian access onto 57th Street, 2) The south and
east setbacks shall comply with RE-43 setback requirements, 3) The architecture shall
be residential in nature, 4) No parking shall be permitted on 57th Street, 5) A maximum
of four vehicles shall be permitted in the detached garage, 6) The developer shall
coordinate with the Street Transportation Department to install no U-turn signs at the
57th Street intersection, 7) Hours of operation shall be limited Monday to Friday, 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m., 8) Signage shall be limited to one non-directly lit sign, not to exceed
48 square feet.

Mr. Popovic agreed with the proposed additional stipulations but suggested adding
Saturday to the hours of operation stipulation.

Mr. Goodhue stated he had forgot to mention that in his proposed stipulations,
suggesting that the hours of operation on Saturdays be allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.

Mr. Popovic agreed with the proposed stipulation for hours of operation on Saturdays.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 273
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Sparks requested to hear from the applicant if the proposed hours of operation to
be stipulated would still allow operation of the company.

Ms. Sepic stated that after looking at surrounding property owners, it appears there are
several investor-owned properties. Ms. Sepic stated she is against Airbnb’s and is in
favor of this residential office, noting the examples shared by Mr. Morris of well-
designed and well-thought-out limited office uses that function as a buffer. Ms. Sepic
suggested the applicant consider installing a traffic light at the adjacent intersection. Ms.
Sepic also indicated she would like to hear from the applicant on what their hours of
operation would be.

Mr. Goodhue clarified that the Committee usually cannot stipulate a traffic light and that
it would come from the Street Transportation Department after their review.

Chair Gubser added there may be issues with putting a light at that intersection
anyway due to the alignment.

Mr. Morris stated that the stipulations are more restrictive than a single-family home
would be. Mr. Morris added that his client is trying to work with the neighborhood to
mitigate their concerns. Mr. Morris stated the hours of operation are very limited and
there may be some instances they would like some flexibility to start before 8:00 a.m. or
later than 12:00 p.m. on a Saturday. Mr. Morris requested flexibility on the hours of
operation but indicated they would work with the Village and will abide by the
stipulations regardless. Mr. Morris stated they have written down all the proposed
additional stipulations and will put it together on a new site plan for the Planning
Commission. Mr. Morris then agreed to the signage stipulation.

Mr. Sparks suggested the hours of operation stipulation be modified to permit additional
hours of operation by appointment only.

Mr. Goodhue stated it would be hard to enforce hours of operation by appointment
only. Mr. Goodhue suggested keeping the stipulation as previously mentioned. Mr.
Goodhue clarified the Committee is a recommending body, indicating that the Planning
Commission may be able to further enhance the stipulations and that it would also allow
the applicant time to think about it so they can have more of a discussion at the
Planning Commission hearing.

Mr. Sparks concurred with Mr. Goodhue’s comments.

Mr. Popovic stated the Committee is walking a fine line limiting a business’ hours of
operation, suggesting that the proposed hours of operation stipulation be modified from
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays to 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m. on
Saturdays.

Mr. Goodhue stated that the reasoning for his proposed additional stipulations is
because the neighborhood was very concerned with a business being located there. Mr.
Goodhue indicated his suggestions intended to make it more of a residential type of
operation so that there was no obvious distinction between this property and a single-

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 274
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

family residence. Mr. Goodhue clarified that they are recommendations, and that the
applicant can still make a case upon the Planning Commission and can alter the
stipulations.

Mr. Popovic clarified if Mr. Goodhue was proposing to keep the proposed hours of
operation stipulation from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays as what the Committee
preliminarily agrees on to recommend to the City Council.

Mr. Goodhue responded affirmatively, stating that City Council can change the
stipulations or delete stipulations if desired.

Chair Gubser asked to clarify if the proposed hours of operation stipulation were 8:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Mr. Goodhue stated it was 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Mr. Goodhue stated
that the applicant is not a major home builder, such as Pulte Homes, but rather a
custom home builder. Mr. Goodhue did not see any problem with the proposed hours of
operation and the operation of the business.

Chair Gubser concurred. Chair Gubser asked Mr. Sparks if he is comfortable with the
proposed stipulations, and requested he amend his motion to address the proposed
stipulations.

Mr. Sparks agreed with the proposed stipulations, indicating he does believe they are a
bit restrictive but that it can be resolved at Planning Commission or City Council.

Mr. Popovic concurred.

Chair Gubser agreed that the hours of operations seemed restrictive and that it could
be resolved at Planning Commission. Chair Gubser also shared his concerns on the
south and east setbacks complying with RE-43 setbacks, stating it may be a little more
restrictive and that the applicant may not be able to achieve the design that they are
proposing. Chair Gubser stated this issue could also be resolved at the upcoming
meetings.

Chair Gubser requested staff take a roll call for the vote. Mr. Zambrano responded
that an amended motion would be required and that some of the proposed stipulations
may not be enforceable, but as a recommending body the Committee may still
recommend the stipulations. Mr. Zambrano indicated the stipulation for setbacks should
have an actual dimension rather than referencing RE-43 setbacks. Mr. Zambrano stated
RE-43 setbacks are 40 feet in the front yard, 30 feet in the side yards, and 40 feet in the
rear yard.

Chair Gubser asked if the south would be 30 feet and the east would be 40 feet.
Mr. Goodhue concurred.

Ms. Sepic stated she thought the discussion was a 30-foot setback on both sides.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 275
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Goodhue stated that he referenced RE-43 setbacks because the neighborhood had
indicated they want to keep a residential use and the RE-43 zoning. Mr. Goodhue
stated the yards that would be affecting the neighbors would be the south and east
yards and if following RE-43 setbacks, the neighbors would have the same view as a
home built on the property.

Mr. Popovic asked for clarification that the stipulation to RE-43 setbacks would only be
on those two sides.

Mr. Goodhue responded affirmatively.

Mr. Popovic clarified that the proposed stipulation is a hybrid of RE-43 and R-O
setbacks.

Mr. Goodhue responded affirmatively.

Ms. Sepic added that a missing stipulation on the screen was for residential
architecture in design.

Mr. Goodhue clarified that the no U-turn sign stipulation would be to have the Street
Transportation Department take it into consideration so the traffic experts can look at it.

Chair Gubser recommended the hours of operation stipulation for Saturdays be 8:00
a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

Mr. Goodhue indicated that he had mentioned 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Mr. Popovic suggested to meet in the middle from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
Saturdays.

Ms. Mortensen concurred with 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on Saturdays.

Chair Gubser agreed to keep the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on
Saturdays. Chair Gubser added that the last missing stipulation was for signage and
asked for clarification on the stipulation.

Mr. Goodhue responded that it was to allow only one non-directly lighted sign not to
exceed 48 square feet.

Ms. Sepic recommended that the sign still be allowed to be lighted, using downward
facing lighting rather than an internally illuminated sign.

Mr. Goodhue concurred, indicating that the intent was to avoid signage lighting to
project out into the street.

Chair Gubser stated that a backlit sign would complement the modern design but was
fine with the proposed stipulation. Chair Gubser asked Mr. Zambrano for comments on
which stipulations could not be enforced.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 276
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Zambrano responded that hours of operation and a maximum of four cars in the
detached garage would likely not be enforceable. Mr. Zambrano indicated further
clarification is needed from City staff or management on if the no U-turn sign or signage
stipulations are enforceable.

Chair Gubser stated that signage is required to go through a permitting process and
that the Committee has stipulated hours of operations on previous projects.

Mr. Zambrano stated he will discuss the stipulations with management afterwards but
as a recommending body the Committee may still recommend these stipulations.

Mr. Goodhue stated that the stipulation for a maximum of four cars in the detached
garage is almost self-enforceable with the design and size of the garage.

Mr. Zambrano asked if Mr. Goodhue would like to stipulate the size of the garage
rather than the number of cars in the garage.

Mr. Goodhue responded not necessarily since cars come in varying sizes and
mentioned that when considering zoning regulations related to 2-car garages and
tandem parking, there are internal dimensions. Mr. Goodhue recommended using those
same dimensions to enforce this stipulation.

Ms. Petersen clarified that the internal design of the detached garage is not what the
Committee is voting on, and that the applicant can change the internal design. Ms.
Petersen stated it was the internal design that limited the number of cars to four.

Mr. Goodhue agreed and added that if stipulating the number of cars to four, it limits
the internal design.

Ms. Petersen asked what difference it would make if the stipulation was not
enforceable anyways.

Mr. Goodhue responded that inspectors would not be going out to monitor the number
of cars in the garage, but rather it would be enforceable during the site plan review
process so that it is designed to only fit four cars.

Ms. Sepic believed that stipulation would be too restrictive when the intent of the
detached garage was only as a showcase office.

Mr. Goodhue responded that Mr. Morris mentioned four cars and that he will hold him
to it.

Mr. Zambrano added that a recommended stipulation from staff was to limit the size of
the detached garage to 4,615 square feet.

Mr. Goodhue believed the stipulated size for the detached garage was still very large.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 277
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Popovic concurred that the applicant had verbally agreed to limiting the detached
garage to four cars and that the Committee should hold them to that commitment.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

Mr. Sparks made an amended motion to recommend approval of Z-43-22-2, per the
staff recommendation, with additional stipulations. Mr. Popovic seconded the motion.

VOTE – Z-43-22-2:

7-7; motion to recommend approval of Z-43-22-2, per the staff recommendation, with
additional stipulations, fails with Committee members Goodhue, Popovic, Sepic,
Soronson, Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor and Committee members Balderrama,
DeMoss, Gerst, Maggiore, Mortensen, Petersen, and Schmidt opposed.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

Ms. Gerst motioned to recommend denial of Z-43-22-2. Ms. DeMoss seconded the
motion.

VOTE – Z-43-22-2:

7-7; motion to recommend denial of Z-43-22-2 fails with Committee members
Balderrama, DeMoss, Gerst, Maggiore, Mortensen, Petersen, and Schmidt in favor and
Committee members Goodhue, Popovic, Sepic, Soronson, Sparks, Wise, and Gubser
opposed.

Discussion:

Ms. Sepic commented that the property directly south of the site in question is an
investment property sold on March 29, 2022. Ms. Sepic stated that she would lean
towards having a different opinion on this rezoning request had she heard from that
property owner that they would be negatively impacted by this request. Ms. Sepic
reiterated that she had looked at most of the surrounding properties and discovered
they are investment properties. Ms. Sepic reiterated that the R-O zoning district was
created as a buffer to transition from residential and added that the surrounding
properties do not have R-O zoning but are being used for businesses, such as a short-
term rental or group home.

MOTION – Z-43-22-2:

Mr. Sepic motioned to recommend approval of Z-43-22-2, per the staff
recommendation, with additional stipulations as discussed. Mr. Sparks seconded the
motion.

Stipulations listed for clarity:
1) The developer shall remove the pedestrian access onto 57th Street.
2) A minimum 30-foot building setback shall be provided along the south and east.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 278
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

3) The architecture shall be residential in nature.
4) No parking shall be permitted on 57th Street.
5) A maximum of four vehicles shall be permitted in the detached garage.
6) The developer shall coordinate with the Street Transportation Department to
install no U-turn signs at the 57th Street intersection.
7) Hours of operation shall be limited Monday to Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,
Saturdays, 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
8) Signage shall be limited to one non-directly lit sign, not to exceed 48 square feet.

Discussion:

Ms. DeMoss commented that at least half of the proposed stipulations may not be
enforceable. Ms. DeMoss stated she could not support recommending approval
because many of those stipulations are not enforceable and because they could be
changed from what the Committee recommends.

Mr. Goodhue clarified that the Committee’s decision on the rezoning request will be a
recommendation that goes to the Planning Commission and that the Planning
Commission will sort it out. Mr. Goodhue believed that most of the stipulations would be
enforceable. Mr. Goodhue reiterated that the proposed stipulations were meant to
mitigate the neighbors’ concerns.

Ms. Petersen stated that after listening to and reading both the opposition and support,
she would have to continue to vote against it. Ms. Petersen added she understands that
the Committee is a recommending body and does not see the value in the Committee if
a higher power chooses to overrule the Committee’s decision.

Larisa Balderrama asked what happened to quorum to avoid situations of a tie vote.

Chair Gubser stated there is quorum and it is just due to the number of Committee
members present.

Mr. Popovic agreed and stated he was unsure what the solution was as it seemed they
would not be able to sway votes one way or the other.

Mr. Zambrano suggested another potential motion could be for a continuance.

Mr. Popovic responded that he would not support a continuance and believes the
applicant has compromised more than enough to get to this point. Mr. Popovic believed
a decision needed to be made by the Committee.

Ms. Petersen added that the community has spent a lot of energy on it as well and that
someone could look at the surrounding investment properties to see what their position
is. Ms. Petersen stated she would support a continuance or would support it moving
forward with a notation that there was serious concern from half of the Committee.

Mr. Popovic argued that there was serious concern from one point of view but serious
support from another point of view.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 279
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022


Ms. Petersen clarified that she believes it should be well stated that half of the
Committee had serious concerns while the other half had support.

Mr. Popovic agreed and reiterated that he is not in support of a continuance when the
applicant has already compromised a lot. Mr. Popovic stated the community had not
convinced him except do a degree, and what he cared most about was those in the
immediate area rather than further away.

Ms. Petersen asked if the property directly to the south supports this request.

Mr. Popovic responded they did support it.

Chair Gubser asked for clarification on if there was contact from the property owner to
the south.

Ms. Sepic responded she was unsure and clarified her only comment was that the
property to the south was an investment property and added that the property to the
east is a vacant lot. Ms. Sepic believed for those reasons that the stipulation for
additional setbacks is irrelevant. Ms. Sepic stated it seemed as though there was
mistrust on both sides and clarified that the Committee should only be evaluating if the
use of the property and its location fit into the R-O zoning designation. Ms. Sepic argued
that the nature of R-O zoning is for low-impact uses, noting that this area is already a
high-traffic area. Ms. Sepic reiterated her arguments for being in favor of this project
and stated the Committee has a duty to provide the applicant with a decision this
evening.

Mr. Popovic concurred.

Ms. Petersen argued that if the Committee’s only obligation is to see if they meet the
City guidelines for zoning, that it negates any community input, which Ms. Petersen
believed was part of the Committee’s job as well. Ms. Petersen stated that the people
this project would have an impact on must have a voice.

Ms. Gerst agreed.

Mr. Popovic argued the community must have a voice, but that the Committee must
also analyze whether they make a case and if it aligns with purpose of the Committee.

Ms. Gerst stated that the Committee is beating a dead horse and is divided. Ms. Gerst
stated all that is left to do is to move it forward with a tie vote or to continue it.

Ms. Petersen added she believes the Committee has an obligation to represent the
people the project affects.

Ms. Gerst agreed.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 280
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Chair Gubser clarified that is the purpose of public comment on the items they hear.
Chair Gubser believed the Committee has done everything they could to craft
stipulations that would protect the neighborhood from the new development. Chair
Gubser stated there was a motion and second and asked for a roll call vote.

Ms. Gerst asked what the motion and second were.

Chair Gubser responded there was a motion and second to approve per the staff
recommendation with additional stipulations.

Ms. Gerst asked if the Committee was to vote on a motion that was already voted on
previously.

Chair Gubser responded affirmatively.

Ms. Mortensen asked if the vote was taken again and remained a tie if the additional
stipulations would be taken into consideration.

Mr. Zambrano responded that the proposed additional stipulations would become part
of a public record in the summary minutes and would be summarized on the Village
Planning Committee recommendation form that is sent to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Goodhue asked for clarification that if the vote remained a tie, it would mean there
is no recommendation, and it would be up to the Planning Commission to discuss it and
review the proposed stipulations.

Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively, indicating the Village Planning Committee
recommendation forms would be sent to the Planning Commission which would include
the proposed stipulations and staff’s comments on which stipulations would not be
enforceable.

Mr. Goodhue asked if planning staff would bring it to the Planning Commission’s
attention rather than the Commission reading it themselves.

Mr. Zambrano responded that is a possibility and that he would discuss that with
Racelle Escolar, who staffs the Planning Commission hearings.

Ms. Gerst asked what staff wants the Committee to do, given the lack of community
agreement and knowing that proposed stipulations may not be enforceable.

Mr. Zambrano responded the Committee needs to vote to pass a motion, whether it be
to approve, deny or continue the case, and clarified the motions can be amended to
propose removing certain stipulations or to propose additional stipulations.

Chair Gubser asked if a motion needed to pass tonight.

Mr. Zambrano responded affirmatively.


200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 281
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Morris stated that is incorrect and that the Committee has the option in the event of
a tie vote of making no recommendation.

Chair Gubser asked if the Committee made no recommendation if the case would be
able to advance to the Planning Commission.

Mr. Morris responded either way it would advance to the Planning Commission
because the applicant is scheduled to be heard at Planning Commission.

Ms. Gerst asked if the Committee continued the case and there was an agreement to
the proposed stipulations that are enforceable with the community being involved, that it
would be a good solution.

Ms. Petersen concurred.

Mr. Popovic disagreed.

Ms. Sepic added she does not believe the community would be involved regardless of
the proposed stipulations. Ms. Sepic added she does not believe it matters which
stipulations are agreed upon or how strict they want to be, stating the Committee
members are either in support of the rezoning request or are not.
Mr. Popovic concurred.

Mr. Goodhue concurred.

Mr. Popovic reiterated he would not vote to continue it. Mr. Popovic recommended the
Committee says they are a tie vote and pass it on to the Planning Commission.

Ms. Gerst stated the Committee will listen to the community and to the applicant and
indicated they want the decision makers to know that there are issues that the
Committee wants to be addressed.

Ms. Schmidt echoed Ms. Mortensen’s concerns of the Planning Commission being
able to see the additional stipulations. Ms. Schmidt stated it makes her nervous if it
were to proceed undecided by the Committee and the additional stipulations were not
addressed. Ms. Schmidt stated with that in mind, she is considering changing her vote.

Ms. Petersen stated she does not believe she could change her vote due to the
uncertainty of several of the proposed additional stipulations being enforceable.

Mr. Popovic stated to keep in mind that the Committee is only a recommending body.

Ms. Petersen understood but did not understand the function of the Committee if
applicants are able to ignore what the Committee has to say and continue along in the
process.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 282
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Mr. Popovic clarified that the Committee’s function is to get on the record to hear what
the community thinks, which will be taken into consideration. Mr. Popovic stated the
Committee provides input to help higher powers make their decisions.

Chair Gubser clarified which stipulations he believes would be enforceable.

Mr. Goodhue added that based on his 40 years of experience in City government, and
20 years of experience with the City of Phoenix government, he believes the only
stipulation that would be hard to enforce would be the hours of operation. Mr. Goodhue
added that the Street Transportation Department would decide on the no U-turn sign
and no parking signs.

Ms. Gerst reiterated that it is important to state that the Committee has concerns. Ms.
Gerst clarified the stipulations are good but would still oppose it due to those concerns.

VOTE – Z-43-22-2:

9-5; motion to recommend approval of Z-43-22-2, per the staff recommendation with
additional stipulations as discussed, passes with Committee members Goodhue,
Mortensen, Popovic, Schmidt, Sepic, Soronson, Sparks, Wise, and Gubser in favor and
Committee members Balderrama, DeMoss, Gerst, Maggiore, and Petersen opposed.

STAFF COMMENTS REGARDING VPC RECOMMENDATION & STIPULATIONS:

VPC recommended stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022 and elevations date stamped
August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022, with specific regard to the inclusion of
metal fascia, wood finish, and stone veneer walls or split face block, as
modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. THE DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 4,615
SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

2. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.
3.

3. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south
4. property line.

4. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east
5. property line and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.



200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 283
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

5. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-
6. inch caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought
tolerant trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-
7. inch caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought
tolerant trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50
8. percent 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25 percent 4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area
9. located between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and
replenish it to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant
shade trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to
a maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live
coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

9. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
10. constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces,
as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
11. inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping
shall be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade
at maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
12. and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-
13. footwide sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 284
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022


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

14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction,
15. 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.

15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
16. 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.

17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONTO
57TH STREET.

18. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED
ALONG THE SOUTH AND EAST.

19. THE ARCHITECTURE SHALL BE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE.

20. NO PARKING SHALL BE PERMITTED ON 57TH STREET.

21. A MAXIMUM OF FOUR VEHICLES SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE
DETACHED GARAGE.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO INSTALL NO U-TURN SIGNS AT
THE 57TH STREET INTERSETION.

23. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY,
8:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., SATURDAY, 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M.

24. SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE NON-DIRECTLY LIT SIGN, NOT
TO EXCEED 48 SQUARE FEET.

Staff recommends that Stipulation Nos. 17, 18, 19, and 21 be modified for clarity.

Staff recommends that Stipulation No. 20 be modified to require that the developer
apply for an on-street parking zone to prohibit on-street parking along 57th Avenue
adjacent to the subject site.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 285
Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee Meeting Summary
November 7, 2022

Staff recommends the deletion of Stipulation No. 22, per the Street Transportation
Department, as adding a U-turn restriction may perpetuate the same type of movement
at the signalized intersection to the west between two arterial streets.

Staff recommends the deletion of Stipulation No. 23 as hours of operation are difficult to
enforce.

Staff recommends the deletion of Stipulation No. 24, per the Signs Section of the
Planning and Development Department, as the proposed development will be subject to
the sign standards of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance.




200 West Washington Street, 3rd Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003-1611 • (602) 262-6882
Page 286
$77$&+0(17*




To: City of Phoenix Planning Commission Date: December 1, 2022

From: Racelle Escolar, AICP
Principal Planner

Subject: ITEM NO. 6 (Z-43-22-2) – SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 57TH STREET AND
SHEA BOULEVARD

The purpose of this is memo is to recommend modifications to the additional stipulations
added by the Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee, and to convey additional
correspondence that has been received regarding this rezoning request.

Rezoning Case No. Z-43-22-2 is a request to rezone 1.37 acres from RE-43 (One-
Family Residence) to R-O (Restricted Commercial) to allow a residential office.

The Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee (VPC) heard this request on
November 7, 2022, and recommended approval, per the staff recommendation with
additional stipulations, by a 9-5 vote.

The Committee recommended eight additional stipulations, in addition to the staff
recommended stipulations per the Addendum A Staff Report. Staff recommends the
following:

x Deletion of Stipulation No. 17 regarding removal of pedestrian access from 57th
Street. This stipulation conflicts with several City policies and design guidelines that
promote and require pedestrian and accessibility enhancements to new
development.
x Modification of Stipulation Nos. 18, 19, and 21 for clarity.
x Modification of Stipulation No. 20 to require the developer to apply for the on-street
parking zones program to prohibit on-street parking along 57th Avenue adjacent to
the site.
x Deletion of Stipulation No. 22, per the Street Transportation Department
recommendation, as adding a U-turn restriction may perpetuate the same type of
movement at the signalized intersection to the west between two arterial streets.
x Deletion of Stipulation No. 23, as hours of operation are difficult to enforce.
x Deletion of Stipulation No. 24, as the proposed development will be subject to the
sign standards of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance for nonresidential activity in a
residential district.




Page 287
Z-43-22-2 Planning Commission Backup Memo
December 1, 2022

Enclosed with this memo are the following correspondence received after the publication
of the Addendum A Staff Report:

x One letter requesting that the case is remanded back to the VPC,
x One letter from a VPC member providing input on the case and the VPC meeting.
x Seventeen letters of opposition, and
x Four letters of support and one petition.

The letters of opposition cite concerns with traffic congestion and safety, pedestrian safety,
commercial uses, traffic in an established residential neighborhood, crime, incompatibility
with a residential neighborhood, property values, availability of nearby commercial
locations, precedent set for surrounding properties by approving the rezoning request, and
accusations made against a Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee member that
voted in favor of the case having a conflict of interest. The letters of support indicated that
the proposed project has a high-quality design, including architectural features that would
be compatible with the neighborhood, it would develop a vacant property adjacent to a
major arterial street, and is the best use for the property given alternative uses, such as a
short-term rental or a group home.

Staff recommends approval, subject to the stipulations below:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date
stamped August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022 and elevations date stamped
August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022, with specific regard to the inclusion of
metal fascia, wood finish, and stone veneer walls or split face block, as
modified by the following stipulations and approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

2. THE DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 4,615
SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.

2.3. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.

3.4. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south
property line.

4.5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east
property line and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on
center or in equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

5.6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.




Page 288
Z-43-22-2 Planning Commission Backup Memo
December 1, 2022

6.7. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch
caliper and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant
trees, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7.8. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50
percent 2-inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and
minimum 25 percent 4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development
Department.

8.9. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area
located between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and
replenish it to the following standards, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade
trees to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live
coverage at maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

9. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be
10. constructed of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other
pavement treatments that visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-
11. inch caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall
be dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at
maturity, as approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U
12. and/or artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the
requirements of Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

12. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-
13. footwide sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as approved
by the Planning and Development Department.

13. The developer shall construct all streets within and adjacent to the
14. development with paving, curb, gutter, sidewalk, curb ramps, streetlights,
median islands, landscaping and other incidentals, as per plans approved by
Page 289
Z-43-22-2 Planning Commission Backup Memo
December 1, 2022

the Planning and Development Department. All improvements shall comply
with all ADA accessibility standards.

14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
15. 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.

15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a
16. 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.

17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONTO
57TH STREET.

18. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG
THE SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES.

19. THE ARCHITECTURE SHALL BE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. THE
ELEVATIONS SHALL CONTAIN DESIGN ELEMENTS OF RESIDENTIAL
CHARACTER, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT.

20. NO PARKING SHALL BE PERMITTED ON 57TH STREET. PRIOR TO
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL APPLY
FOR THE ON-STREET PARKING ZONES PROGRAM IN ORDER TO
INSTALL NO PARKING SIGNS ALONG 57TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE
SUBJECT SITE.

21. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF FOUR
VEHICLES SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE DETACHED GARAGE.
PARKING SPACES, AS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE STREET
TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT TO INSTALL NO U TURN SIGNS AT
THE 57TH STREET INTERSETION.

23. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY,
8:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., SATURDAY, 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M.

24. SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE NON DIRECTLY LIT SIGN, NOT TO
EXCEED 48 SQUARE FEET.

Enclosures:
Correspondence (60 pages)


Page 290
Racelle Escolar

From: Meaghan Franks
Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2022 4:58 PM
To: Joshua Bednarek; Racelle Escolar
Cc: Alan Stephenson; Council District 2 PCC; Matthew Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.; Brendan Franks
Subject: Rezone Case: Z-43-22-2 Request


Josh,

Thank you for your time today.

After discussions with our neighbors and legal counsel, we strongly request the Planning Commission refuse to hear the
case tomorrow evening and instead remand it back to VPC for proper reconsideration due to conflict of interest
from Anna Sepic. Additionally, we request that Ms. Sepic be recused from the reconsideration meeting. We do not feel
that we had a fair, clean or conflict-free hearing. The VPC made stipulations to the proposal that are not enforceable just
to advance the matter out of VPC.

1) This will help alleviate conflict of interest issues and we will be given an opportunity for a fair and clean VPC evaluation
and recommendation.

2) If the Planning Commission does not remand the case, we reserve our right to explore other legal options against the
City.

Thank you,
Meaghan Franks, Brendan Franks and Matthew Karlovsky





Page 291
Racelle Escolar

From: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Case Z-43-22-2



From:JM
Sent:Thursday,December1,202212:51PM
To:PDDPlanningCommission
Subject:RE:CaseZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

JenniferMaggiore
480Ͳ270Ͳ5395

December1,2022

CityofPhoenixPlanningCommission

RE:CaseZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

AsacommitteememberofthePVVillagePlanningCommittee,Iamwritingtoofferinputontheapplicationtorezone
thesoutheastcornerof57thandShea.

TheconversationaroundthisapplicationdifferedintonefromtheothermeetingsIhaveattended.Itwashighly
contentious,withaccusationsmadeabouthowinputwascollected,whetherafewneighborshaddrummedupfake
opposition,andifsupporterswerepersonalfriendsandcolleaguesoftheindividualwhoownstheproperty.

Thefirstvoteendedinatie,whichwouldhaveconcludedasnorecommendation.Asmallhandfulofthemostvocal
committeemembersmadeamotionforasecondvote,whichagainendedinatie.Therewasamotionforathirdvote
whenonecommitteememberchangedhervote,movingthiscaseforwardasapprovedwithstipulations.

Sincethen,wehavereceivedongoingcommunicationfromneighborsinoppositionofrezoning,andadditional
informationthatanew,firstͲtimecommitteememberatthispastVPCmeetingmayhaveaconflictofinterestinsupport
ofthisrezoning.AfewotheritemsofnoteͲ

First,oneofthosevocalcommitteemembersinsupportofadditionalmotionstovotewasthememberinquestion.I
foundtheinformationaboutherpotentialconflictofinterestcompellingenoughtoinquirewithourVillagePlannerand
wastoldthathecouldnotcommentbecausehewasawaitingguidancefromtheirlawdept.Multiplerequeststhispast
weekforaphonecalltoclarifymyquestionsaboutthevotingprocessforthiscasewererebuffed.

Second,weasacommitteeneededmorestraightforwardguidanceonhandlingatievoteduringthemeeting,allowing
thisvocalgrouptocontinuemotioningforvotesuntilthisitempassed.

Last,hadthatcommitteememberrecusedherself,thisitemwouldlikelynothavebeenapproved.

Idon'tknowtheparcelownerorthecommitteememberinquestionpersonallyandcannotspeaktomotivesor
intentions.Ilivenearbybutnotintheneighborhood;Iwon'tfeeltheimpactsthewayneighborswillifthisitemis
approved.Myworldwon'tchangemuchifthisparcelisrezonedornot.





Page 292
IchosetoserveontheVPCtohearresidentsandcontributetosounddecisionͲmakingͲandthat'stypicallywhat
happens.Inthiscase,myexperienceofthispastmeetingdidnotalignwithwhatI'vecometoexpectfromtheVPC.As
partofyourdecisionͲmakingprocessIamsharingthatthisitemdidnotreceivewholeheartedapproval.

Thankyouforyourtime.

JenniferMaggiore,CEO
CatalystCos.
480Ͳ270Ͳ5395





Page 293
Racelle Escolar

From: akbw@cox.net
Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2022 9:11 AM
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson
Subject: Rezoning Case: Z-43-22-2


Wehavelivedinthisneighborhoodsince1984.Asoneofthelongestresidingoccupantsinthisneighborhood,wetotally
opposethiszoningchange.
Thispropertyhasalwaysbeenanoccupiedsinglefamilyhomeformanymoreyearsthanwehavelivedhere.
Thebuyerboughtthispropertywiththefullintentionofaskingforthiszoningchange.Hedidnotbuyitwiththe
contingencythathecouldobtainthisrezoning.
Ibelievehedidnotanticipatetheresponseofthisneighborhood.
Weareaverydiversegroupandselectedthisneighborhoodmostlyduetothelargelotsizesandthefactthatwehave
noCCR’S.
Inthemanyyearswehavelivedherewehavehadnotroublewithanyofourneighborsandamnotawareofany
difficultiesamongotherresidents.

Althoughtheneighborhoodhashadmanychangesovertheyearsandourhomesareverydiverseithascontinuedto
improve.Inthelastfewyearsour
propertyvalueshavesoared.Regalhomeshasboughtthissolelyfortheirbenefitandconvenienceandnotthe
residents.

Ronald&AnneWeinstock
10405N.57thSt.
ScottsdaleAZ85353





Page 294
Racelle Escolar

From: David Biliack
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 6:53 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: 57th Street




David Biliack
5700 Bar z Lane
Paradise Valley, AZ 85253
 








Re: Rezoning Case: Z-43-22-2

I hope you will consider the feelings of all the homeowners directly affected by this rezoning who have
been tireless in their efforts to defeat the rezoning of this property.

We have lived here since 1985 and raised our three children here. This rezoning is of no benefit to the
neighborhood. It will only increase the traffic and congestion.

The residents on 58th St. have already installed speed bumps on their street to reduce the traffic and slow
the speed of drivers.

We hope you consider voting in favor of denying this zoning change.

David Biliack

SentfrommyiPhone





Page 295
From: Brendan Franks
To: Council District 2 PCC
Cc: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise Valley VPC; Adrian G Zambrano; Mayor Gallego; Council District
1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7
PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Rezoning Case: Z-43-22-2
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 6:02:36 PM


Councilman Waring,

My name is Brendan Franks, and presently live at 10006 N. 58th St Paradise Valley
AZ 85253 [google.com] with my wife Meaghan and our two children ages 3 and 1.

Our property is 9 lots (under .5 miles) away from the subject property/development
and want to make clear we are vehemently opposed to the rezoning effort in our
neighborhood.

Our chief concerns focus squarely on two main issues: traffic and safety.

Traffic is already a major concern on Shea both East and West directions at nearly
all times of the day and evening.

While heading North on 57th towards Shea to access the Tatum/Shea commercial
corridor, making a left is a daunting task. In the morning, commuters on Shea are
rushed to get to work making hasty turns and hazardous lane switches, sometimes
under traffic lights to inch closer to their destination at any cost. We see this often
next to a school located at 56th and Shea, where speed limits of just 15mph are
hardly adhered to. In the evening, we hear drag racing.

Adding just one extra vehicle from the proposed redevelopment will only make this
dangerous left all but impossible. In fact, after purchasing our home, we learned a
previous owner’s family was involved in a fatal accident making this exact left turn
(Westbound) at 57th and Shea.

Exiting Shea into our neighborhood isn’t safer, and unfortunately, we know this
firsthand. In 2021, while pregnant, my wife was stopped in the turn lane on Shea
and 58th, waiting for a break in traffic to get home and was sideswiped at 50mph.
She was rushed by ambulance to Honor Health Scottsdale Shea to see if our baby
was still alive. Due to the crash, her car was towed away and needed $15,000 in
repairs and $25,000 in emergency medical procedures and monitoring. And yes,
the police were called, and the driver was ticketed for speeding, reckless driving,
and failure to avoid an accident. We still don’t know if this accident inflicted any
developmental issues for our now one-year-old.



Page 296
After doing some research, we learned the individual who purchased the lot in
question has residential development projects in Paradise Valley south of us. This
creates another commuter drive to the site through our neighborhood of Mountain
View, Morning Glory, Sanna, 58th, 57th, and 56th that already have issues with
non-residents speeding and snaking through our streets to avoid Tatum or
Scottsdale Rd during high traffic hours while children are walking and waiting at
bus stops. To that point, from 7-9am M-F, only school buses driving Eastbound are
permitted to head South on Morning Glory to reach Doubletree Ranch Rd. With
continued speeding and safety issues, further action was taken by the Paradise
Valley Police Department: almost without fail, there is a marked police SUV that
waits on the corner on Mountain View and 57th every weekday morning. Us
neighbors and residents gladly welcome PVPD’s efforts to ensure our safety;
adding more risky rush hour drivers avoiding traffic is not what we want or need.
Despite these efforts, the problem persists.

As a commercial property owner, I know firsthand the operational and ownership
attention that a building of this size needs. Without question, clients, staff, vendors,
maintenance, and other service providers will utilize our neighborhood streets to
access the proposed site during the day. It’s a nonstop carousel to commercial sites;
commercial trash, commercial deliveries, commercial Fedex/UPS, commercial lawn
care, janitorial services, etc. Workers at the proposed site will, from time-to-time,
want some fresh air. Shea doesn’t provide that; they will undoubtedly walk our
neighborhoods. This is a major safety issue as strangers will be looking at or into
our homes. The increased vehicular and personnel volume is not what is wanted or
needed.

We frequently walk, stroll, and wagon, in the precise area where an increase in
traffic would limit our family neighborhood outings. When we do walk outside, we
always go into the neighborhood, away from Shea. Three sets of close neighbors on
57th and 58th with children drive to our home so their children will not be hit by
speeding cars. We did not ever anticipate having these worries when we moved
here. Had we known we would be adding existing hazards with a new, complex
layer that included the commercialization of our streets, we wouldn’t have moved
here two years ago. Simply put, it's too dangerous.

Nighttime use isn’t any better. Just two months ago, we heard a knock on our door
in the evening from a non-resident cutting through our neighborhood. Our mailbox,
walking path and flowerpots in our front yard were destroyed and run over as the
driver was speeding and distracted, per my security cameras. (I opted not to file a
police report because the driver was a 17-year-old Chaparral Senior) His car was
totaled, and we incurred $8,000 worth of damage. We were left with a pile of rubble
and worry that they could have plowed into our home. We are living through
another accident just months and steps away from the last one. We were terrified.


Page 297
What if our kids were outside? Why don’t others respect our speed bumps? Why
didn’t he take Scottsdale Rd or Tatum if you don’t live here? Why do nonresidents
continue to speed and snake through our streets?

This incident and problems at night are not isolated. The rules of statistics say more
cars, more accidents, more people, more crime; a harrowing and uncomfortable
thought after our neighborhood has already experienced recurring vehicular tragedy.
Last week, on October 29th, there was an armed robbery where a resident was held
at gunpoint by a nonresident at the corner of 61st and Mountain View. The
backyard of the home next door was used as a point of entry; multiple family homes
with children were turned into crime scenes. As it relates to the proposed lot to be
redeveloped, we do not have the resources as a neighborhood to fend off bad actors
using the facility late at night as it is intended. We are a neighborhood at risk.

According to LoopNet and CoStar, “go-to” commercial property databases, there is
an overabundance of office space varying in size, building age, rent per square foot,
etc. available for rent at the Tatum Shea and Scottsdale Shea intersections. There
are also lots available that currently conform to the zoning use proposed.
Commercial lots do not start until much further down Shea toward Tatum or
Scottsdale Rd, making this a very awkward standalone commercial site, and risks
bringing other commercial sites to existing properties with older homes at nearby
street corners, including our street on 58th and Shea. If one gets zoning approval,
others will follow suit. Commercial real estate likes to be close to other commercial
real estate.

The proposed development site at the corner of 57th and Shea, where a home
existed until a few weeks ago, is not the “highest and best use” of this lot, a golden
rule in commercial real estate. Our neighborhood truly cannot stomach another
tragedy. This lot is a residential lot, has been historically, and should remain so in
the future. Again, simply put, it really is just too dangerous. This neighborhood has
experienced fatal accidents, mother and fetus trauma, armed robbery, and persistent
negligent driving. We encourage the future use of this site to conform with existing
zoning laws for all the reasons stated above.




Page 298
Racelle Escolar

From: guylabelle@cox.net
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 3:36 PM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: FW: zoning case z-43-22-2




From:guylabelle@cox.net
Sent:Monday,November28,20223:31PM
To:ppd.lomgrange@phoenix.gov;racelle.escolar@phx.gov;councel.district.1@phoenix.gov
Cc:mayor.gallego@phoenix.gov;council.distrct.3@phoenix.gov;council.distrcit.2@pheonx.gov;
council.distrct.4@phoenix.gov;council.distrct5@phoenix.gov;council.distrioct.6@phoenix.gov;
council.distrct.7@phoenix.gov;council.distrct.8@phoenix.gov
Subject:zoningcasezͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2

HelloFolks,

MynameisGuyLabelleandIliveonthecornerofmountainviewroadand58thstreetand
wanttoexpressmystrongoppositiontotheproposedoffice/residentialchangeinzoning
addressedatthiszoningmeetingof12/1.

MywifeandIhavebeenresidentshereat58thstreetandMountainviewrdforover45years
andasseniorcitizensof78and81wehavetakenmanywalksup57thstreetand58thstreet
andhavetalkedtoourneighborsmanytimesaboutthecommunityandneighborhoodissues.

Wevehementlyopposeanychangeinzoningthatcanandmostlikelywillincreasetrafficin
ourarea,createdangerousconditionsforourneighborhood,andmostimportantlychange
thecharacteranddepthofourcommunityspirit.

Ifthisisapproveditwillopenupanotherchanceforanofficebuildingonthecornerof58th
streetandSheaBlvdaswellwhichwouldonlyfurtherdeteriorateourcommunity.

Amongotherissueswebelieveitwillcauseanincreasetrafficon58thstreetforthoseclients
oftheofficewhowouldliketogowestonsheablvdbutcannotmakeauturnorriskan
accidentofmakingoneonShea.

Thiswouldleadthemtomakearighton58thstreet,godowntomountainivewrdandhead
westto56thstreetwheretheycanturnandaccessatrafficsignalwithlessdangerous
outcomes.



Page 299
Needlesstosaythiswillcreateadangeroussituationforweresidentswholiketotakeour
dailywalksonthesestreetsaswellasthechildrenandyoungadultswhoplayonthesestreets.

FinallyweunderstandthedeveloperclaimsthattheycanbuildahouseontheSheaBlvd
propertywhichmakesnosenseatall.Theycanbuildit,rentit,andfindabuyerwhocanuse
itforeitherassistedlivingorshorttermrentalswhichisfarbetterthanasmallcommercial
officebuilding.

Wehavespokentoalmosteveryoneinourareawhostronglyopposethisprojectandare
adamanttostopit.

Thankyouforyourconsiderationinthismatter.



Zâç _tuxÄÄx
GuyLabelle
5721EastMountainviewrd
ParadiseValleyArizona85253












Page 300
Racelle Escolar

From: Matthew Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:13 AM
To: Racelle Escolar
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2


DearRacelle,


I live 6 lots south of the property (a distance of 900 feet per Apple Maps) where the lot owner/applicant has
proposed a rezoning change to RO, on the SE corner of Shea and N.57th St. We as neighbors initially had more
than 70 who have signed a petition back in September and October, vehemently opposing this rezoning attempt
that would negatively change the character, feel and appearance of our street and neighborhood. As of this past
week, we have collected approximately 37 more, bringing the total to >100 residents/neighbors who live on N.
57th St or within 1-3 streets to oppose this rezoning request.

Among the residents/neighbors who will be negatively impacted by the rezoning are those who live on N.57th
(such as myself), N.56th, N.58th, Mountainview and Montrose/Turquoise/Onyx, I am not aware of one resident
who is in favor of this proposal who has publicly supported this commercialization of our quiet paradise valley
village. Please see that we as neighbors have demonstrated that the opposition to this rezoning change is real,
granular, and consistently strong. I have attended all three VPC meetings online, have walked the streets,
spoken with neighbors, helped collect signatures, and engaged legal counsel to assist our case, supported
monetarily by many of the neighbors as well. Our counsel is arranging a meeting with Council member Jim
Waring for next week so we can also register our opposition.

The reality is that the applicant, Regal American, and his advocate, Jason Morris, have not been able to
convince any neighbors why we should support their request to rezone or why the rezoning is supposedly
beneficial to our small neighborhood since they began their rezoning process back in June. In fact, they have
engaged in a bit of trickery by collecting a petition of >100 signers that mainly include personal friends and
personal business associates, as well as people who live far outside the village to feign support for a project that
will have no impact on their homes, their streets or neighborhood safety or character. It was evident when their
supporters at the 3rd VPC meeting all admitted they live nowhere near the property and are either friends or
work with or benefit from Regal American's business. Their lives are not impacted by the outcome of the
rezoning. Mine is, my neighbors are, their kids, their teenager drivers, their older parents who walk in the area.

Despite the assertion (without foundation) by Mr Morris, or VPC member Anna Sepic, this rezoning proposal
introduces significant risk to our streets. It will necessarily increase traffic to the corner, along an already very
busy corridor of east bound Shea. Their proposal to move and open up their private entrance/exit from N.57th St
to Shea makes it MORE, not less dangerous to enter or exit this property with your car. Traffic on Shea will
have to contend with this blind driveway. There is new danger added because of the driver speeds on Shea, the
access in and out of the small residential streets of N.57th St and N.58th streets, and the added traffic not just
during business hours. As it is now, there are NO private entrances directly on Shea on the south side
(eastbound) because it is a DANGER for motorists on Shea and those trying to enter or exit such properties. The
applicant wants to create a private entrance where it has been already deemed not safe by prior city planners.
This breaks a trend of no entrances/exits exit for private lots on east bound Shea. The only private entrances off
Shea on this south side are homes with small frontage roads. This area is already too busy for this proposed
commercialization. The local area is already clogged up by Mountainside fitness and a small hospital going up


Page 301
on at Shea/N.52th street. The applicant's proposal creates a new danger that prior city planners purposefully
avoided.

The applicant, Regal American, is a luxury home builder, who will undoubtedly bring countless clients to this
proposed office space, as VPC member Anna Sepic stated in her letter. These real estate clients would arrive not
just during business hours, but also significantly after hours to his proposed 5000 SQFT office complex and
4000+ SQFT all-purpose show room. "After hours" means after 5pm and on weekends for real estate showings,
gatherings, events or other such business types of activities with potentially dozens of drivers when our
neighborhood is supposed to be quiet during these times. This will add to traffic, noise, and damage the
environment in which we are trying to live. If rezoned, there is no way for the applicant to stipulate his weekend
or afterhours business activities. It will be impossible for us neighbors to police this property for after-hours
activities. The nature of the applicant's proposal, a 2-building project with what was initially submitted as a 23-
car garage in their 1st application to the VPC, would break all kinds of precedent for the character and purpose
of living in our village. There is simply nothing like this, and it will damage our living environment.

If this rezoning is approved, it will necessarily act as precedent for rezoning for other "border" properties along
Shea between N.56th and N. 58th, including the property currently represented for sale by VPC member Anna
Sepic on N.56th St and Shea. If this rezoning application is approved, it benefits Anna Sepic and her client as it
would become more, not less valuable for a buyer, developer, builder, to then rezone that lot, using this
rezoning application as precedent. The mere optics of a conflict of interest, not disclosed to us at the VPC
meeting was dishonest. She and her client stand to personally gain from this current rezoning application. Her
aggressive support of the rezoning application was quite obvious. Again, she did not reveal this potential
conflict of interest to the VPC members nor the public during this 4-hour long meeting. Her vote in favor of this
rezoning proposal was a vote for creating new precedent that cannot be reversed. Even if she lives in District 2,
she does not live within 1/4 mile of the current property in question. Her personal home and neighborhood are
not affected. Our homes and neighborhood are affected. The VPC could not truly act in the interests of the
neighbors at the 3rd meeting because Anna Sepic had her thumb on the scale. Undoubtedly, if she had recused
her herself, the VPC would have voted against the rezoning, 7-6, instead of it ending in a tie twice.

Similarly, the applicant, and his advocate, will not suffer the negative quality of life changes their project will
bring to our small neighborhood. As the owner of that lot, he is well within his right to build whatever he
chooses within the establishes zoning rules that we all abide by. Many new single-family homes have been built
on N.56 St, N.57th and N. 58th streets in the past 10 years. All these homes abided by the zoning rules in place.
We as the local neighbors are not anti-builder. We are anti-rezoning. Further to this point, the builder,
Regal American, built my own home more than 6 years ago, in which I currently live. It is a beautiful structure.
He has built many other single-family homes in paradise valley, all presumably within the zoning rules. I
became friends with the builder, Avi, through the building process and have introduced him to other friends for
whom he is building their luxury home. Regal American has benefited from my friendship greatly. We, as
neighbors, now >100, simply do not want Regal to force a rezoning for something that simply does not belong.
He is a builder and should be able to design a beautiful single-family home on that lot. His advocate's argument
that the corner lot is "too busy" for a family home as the justification to put a 2-building office complex is
negated by the reality of other new homes have recently built on Shea between N.57th and N.61st just within
the last 4 years. He states no one would want to live on Shea because it is too busy. This is false. There are not
only new builds on Shea, but also many renovations along this stretch of Shea as well. That means homeowners
investing more money to beautify their homes along Shea. A single-family home on the applicant's lot, would
not increase traffic, rather it would maintain the entrance on N. 57th where it is now, and would preserve the
purpose and character of the street, as was intended by zoning rules. Whatever stipulations to the property the
applicant makes regarding signage, easement or otherwise do not make the neighborhood less dangerous.

The applicant/builder has single handedly created for himself this rezoning situation. He and his advocate
simply did not survey the local homeowners either before he purchased the lot (on which there was a home for

Page 302
decades prior to being demo'ed) nor after he purchased it in Sept 2021. The applicant, and/or his advocate,
lacked the necessary forethought and insight they should have had as experts in construction and land use as to
whether there would or would not be neighborhood opposition. As a luxury home builder, Regal knew or
should have known he would likely face strong opposition to the office complexes he desires to build and that it
would be an uphill battle because he would have to overcome zoning restrictions which serve a purpose. Zoning
restrictions exist for a reason. Mr Morris knew or should have known this as well. That he may not have
counseled his client properly on the risks of this lot purchase is their responsibility to bear, which they are trying
to shift onto us the local residents. The applicant and/or his advocate failed to heed the primary admonition in
business when he bought the lot, "let the buyer beware". The applicant's advocate admitted to us at the meetings
that Regal purchased the property with the intention of making it into office complexes. That he is facing
opposition by every single neighbor on N.57th and N.58th street and other streets should have been predictable.
As Mr Morris stated to us, Regal's 2nd choice alternative, building a luxury home, whether to sell or used as a
"VRBO" property would be perfectly acceptable to us neighbors because it would not require a rezoning. In
addition, if he does not want to spend the money on building and selling a luxury home, he can sell the lot.
These other choices are well within his rights and within the current zoning rules. As we have seen, there are
buyers for the lot. After all, Regal bought it from someone else.

Building anything other than what the neighborhood is zoned for will introduce danger, more traffic, risk, and a
domino effect of commercialization to our area that they do not have to live with. The applicant and his
advocate do not live on our street. Prior rezoning attempts on N.58th street have already failed twice in the past.
We are here now to oppose this rezoning to preserve what we have and what we have invested in. Ironically, Mr
Morris states that his client wants to build an office complex on this corner and not a house because it's already
too busy of a neighborhood. He makes our point. It is already too busy, and his office complex will make it
busier. If he were to simply follow the zoning rules and build a home it would help strengthen the character of
our neighborhood. Additionally, Mr Morris' 2nd argument, that several homes on N.57th St are already used as
VRBO properties or elder care homes and act as quasi-businesses completely ignores that fact that the elder
care homes are in single family homes, are not busy with traffic, and are appear anonymous. Driving down
N.57th street, no one would know which are the elder care homes. THAT is the point. And they are quiet. A
VRBO home is minimally occupied over the course of the year, even less so that a full-time homeowner, and
anonymous looking as well. VRBO properties are all single-family home construction. We need to maintain
neighborhood standards and not create precedent with a RO proposal that cannot be reversed. Any rezoning is
permanent and will cause a domino effect that will not be reversible. Whatever the current applicant wants to do
with his lot if it is rezoned, does not restrict a future buyer of this lot from demo'ing Regal's office buildings and
constructing something worse, or applying for full commercial rezoning. There are easily foreseeable negative
impacts to this rezoning, and there are always unforeseen negative ones as well. Please preserve our home
environment and oppose this. Please do not create a rezoning anomaly that will soon because a new standard
that cannot be undone.

Lastly, as Anna Sepic pointed out, the property to the east of Regal's lot and the property directly south on
N.57th St are owned by those who did not attend the VPC meetings. This is not to imply that they support the
rezoning, as she tried to imply, simply because they did not oppose it at the last VPC meeting. They simply did
not attend. But, and very importantly, the remaining lot owner just across the street from Regal's lot, the owners
of 10438 N. 57th Street, are OPPOSED to this rezoning and have monetarily contributed to our legal fund
opposing the rezoning even though he and his wife did not attend the VPC meetings either. This is telling.

Again, we are not against the builder, we are against the rezoning. We are all against the rezoning, now
>100 to 1, especially for those that live on N. 57th and N.58th St. The overwhelming majority strongly oppose
this even if it were >100 to 2. The applicant had three VPC meetings to draw neighbors closer to his proposal.
Just the reverse occurred. Opposition has grown exponentially the more neighbors learn about it. Please
consider these details in your decision making. We live here. We are the stakeholders that have to live with your


Page 303
decision. We are vested in preserving our streets, we are affected by this. We opposed this uniformly. This is
real opposition. Please protect us as homeowners. Please vote no.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Matthew E. Karlovsky, M.D., F.A.C.S.
480-272-0499 cell





Page 304
From: mike mckee
To: Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise Valley VPC; Adrian G Zambrano; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council
District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council
District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC; Racelle Escolar
Subject: opposition Rezoning Case: Zed-43-22-2
Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:33:29 PM
Attachments: image001.png




Councilman Jim Waring and other council members,
RE: Rezoning Case: Zed-43-22-2


Dear Mr. Waring,
I am writing this letter as a concerned homeowner in the Shea and Tatum area. I live on N 58th
Street, just south of Mountain View. I would like to voice my strong opposition to this
rezoning project. In my opinion, a commercial entity on this site would be completely out of
character with the neighborhood. To my knowledge, there is almost uniform opposition to this
commercial project from every other neighbor and property owner in the area. It is my
understanding that once this lot is rezoned, it could result in it being used for a number of
different purposes and that it is not revokable. Again, this would be very much in conflict with
the family oriented neighborhood that it is in.

There is already extremely busy traffic on Shea Blvd with spinoff onto the residential streets
south of it and this represents practical and real dangers for us with young children and
families in the area. There have already been a number of serious accidents in trying to access
Shea from the southern residential streets.

It is also my understanding that a committee member has a definite conflict of interest that
they should have disclosed, and they should have recused themselves, or at least disclosed,
during this discussion (i.e., selling adjacent properties for similar high intensity use where
rezoning would favor them disproportionately). It is also my understanding that the support for
this project is not from people who live in and around the proposed rezoning area.

To conclude, I would like to express my strong opposition to the rezoning case listed above. I
would be happy to discuss this with you personally at your convenience. My cell phone
number is 480-798-7379.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Yours truly,


Michael McKee, MD, FRCS(C)



Michael McKee, MD, FRCS(C)


Page 305
Page 306
From: Niloofar Dehghan, MD
To: Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise Valley VPC; Adrian G Zambrano; Mayor Gallego; Council District
1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC; Council District 6
PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: opposition to rezoning - 57th St & Shea
Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 10:20:48 PM




Councilman Waring, Phoenix Council Members, and Planning committee members:

I live at 9303 N 58th St. I am emailing you about a property that is petitioning to have a change of zoning from
residential to a commercial, at the corner of 57 and Shea. This is 0.8 miles from my house. Myself and my husband
are adamantly opposed to this rezoning.

Changing the zoning of this property will forever change it and open the door it to becoming a busy commercial
property. We specifically bought a property in this area, as it is a quiet residential neighbourhood, to raise our
family. We have three small children under the age of four. We do not want a commercial property in our
residential area, as it will increase the local traffic, and affect the safety or our residents. Our kids ride their bikes in
the area, and I walk the baby in the stroller, neither of which will be safe in a busy area with lots of traffic. As an
orthopaedic trauma surgeon I take care of many pedestrians struck by vehicles. I will tolerate to having this brought
in our area and put my children at risk. There is also a concern for increased crime with the added traffic, as well as
decrease in value of our property.

My husband and I, and a numerous number of our neighbours are adamantly opposed to this. I know there was a
planning meeting that some of my neighbours attended. They were told at the meeting that the community wants
this. Trust me, we DO NOT.

I am aware that a committee member who owns the property adjacent to this property, and also wants to do a similar
rezoning, voted to have this past. I’m not sure how this is legal, or ethical, to have this person involved with the
decision making given the obvious conflict of interest.

Please let us know how we can meet to discuss this further.
You can reach me directly at 480-243-2861.

Thank you,


Niloofar Dehghan - MD, MSc, FRCSC
Orthopaedic Surgeon - Trauma and Upper Extremity Reconstruction
Associate Professor - University of Arizona College of Medicine Phoenix
Chief of Trauma and Trauma Fellowship Program Director -
The CORE Institute® - Center for Orthopaedic Research and Education




Page 307
From: Santosh Rao
To: PDD Paradise Valley VPC
Subject: Rezoning Case No: Z-43-22-2
Date: Monday, November 28, 2022 6:11:17 PM


To Paradise Valley Village Planning Committee




I live at 10438 N 57th Street, directly across the street from the proposed rezoning. Case No: Z-43-22-2
and am writing to express a Strong Opposition to the proposed rezoning.

In 2004, my family of four moved from Boston to relocate and make our home in Arizona. After looking
around for six months, we found our perfect residence. 18 years later, we are still here. Our kids grew up
here and went to Cochise, Cocopah, and Chaparral. This has been home, and we love it just as-is! The
proposed rezoning would be so disappointing that it is difficult to explain in words. One of the few select
streets in the area that can proudly state that we have a Paradise Valley address, Phoenix City Services,
and Scottsdale schools; why should we rezone? It would change the feel of the entire neighborhood and
would be the beginning of the ending of the entire feel of the street and neighborhood. In the last several
years, the traffic on Shea Blvd has increased significantly and has caused us concerns. The insertion of a
commercial business would have further implications and would be unsafe.

There is no upside to this proposal. Regal American and his attorney state that the rezoning would be
beneficial. Beneficial to whom? Other than the developer, no one would benefit from this rezoning. Most,
if not all, residents (in the proximity of the rezoned property) vehemently oppose this, as demonstrated
by the signed petitions to oppose and participation in the Council meetings. The people who support this
proposal have zero interest in the neighborhood and the lives of the residents and would sign
anything since they are friends, business associates, and acquaintances of the developer.

As long-term residents, we ask you to listen to the residents and surrounding neighbors. None of us want
this to be a beginning of a commercial tract.

PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE THIS REZONING PROPOSAL.



Sincerely,

Santosh & Praneeta Rao

Residents at 10438 N 57th St, Paradise Valley, AZ 85253




Page 308
Racelle Escolar

From: Blanca Steber
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:42 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: 6. Application #: Z-43-22-2



6. Application #: Z-43-22-2

From: RE-43

To: R-O

Acreage: 1.37

Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard

Proposal: Residential Office

Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings

Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC 





Myoppositiontotherezoningisthatitwouldchangethemakeupofthecommunitybyrezoningittoacommercial
lot.Sheaalreadyhasalotoftrafficrunningthroughit.PeopleuseSheatocutthroughtowntogettoStateRoute51
fromScottsdale.Torezonethispropertytocommercialwouldincreasetraffic,peopleandpollution.

Thispropertyislocatedinaprimeresidentialarea.Thisareaiscovetedbyfamilieswithchildrenbecauseofthebiglots
andgreatschoolsinthecommunity.ScottsdaleUnifiedSchoolDistrictshasthefollowingschoolsforchildren4y.o.Ͳ18
y.o.:CherokeeElementary,CocopahMiddleSchool,ChaparralHighSchool.

ParadiseValleyisawonderfulcommunitytoliveinbecauseoftheopenspaceandlackofbusinesses.Itisanexcellent
placetoridebikes,goforwalksorrun.Wehavelivedinthecommunitysince2009andloveit.

Cordiallyyours,

BlancaSteber





Page 309
From: C Wright
To: PDD Planning Commission; Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise Valley VPC; Adrian G Zambrano; Mayor
Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 2 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council District 5 PCC;
Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Cc: Camille Swanson
Subject: Opposition to rezoning SE Corner of 57th St/Shea Blvd; Z-43-22-2
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 6:13:14 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.03.12 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.09.02 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.12.43 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.10.07 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.10.55 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.11.25 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.50.07 PM.png
Screen Shot 2022-11-29 at 5.47.37 PM.png
IssuedPermit2796094.pdf
IssuedPermit2736514.pdf
IssuedPermit2729238.pdf


To whom it may concern,

I am opposed to rezoning the land at the SE corner of 57th St & Shea Blvd in Paradise Valley. I’m
a realtor & resident living and working in this community. I have concerns:

Rezoning will change the feel of the neighborhood
Our community has many families & kids who need a safe place to walk & ride along the streets
on foot or on bikes. A commercial property in that location will bring different people who do not
have the same desire to preserve these characteristics.

1. Our area has been solidly residential from the time it was developed, except for parcels of
special use (school, places of worship- at 56th St./Shea Blvd.) The parcel was NOT vacant
land until last year or 2 after, it sold in 2019 as a singl- family home.
The 2020 permits issued to demo the house are attached.




Page 310
1.
2. It appears the owners of 10443 partnered with the owners of 10441. If other adjacent
neighbors choose to rezone, that means an additional acre(s) of land could potentially be
rezoned commercial.
3. The vacant lot immediately to the east of 10441 has been sitting in a trust since ‘98. I’d
think it would be easy to pick up, especially at the costs of the other 2 lots. That would
make 3 contiguous lots, 2 fronting Shea.


Rezoning creates a safety hazard
I am concerned about traffic. I’m waiting for the day someone gets hit from behind by a car going 50-60MPH while turning south
at 58th St. or someone on 58th St waiting to turn left gets hit by a car turning south that can’t slow down enough to take the turn.
This project increases those chances.

1. Per above the commercial properties with frontage on Shea have service roads to turn from. Residential properties do also.
Turning from Shea onto 57th St will have less room to make that turn if traveling at a high speed to enter the property.
There is no turning lane at 57th or 58th St. as an example, the commercial property at Tatum/Shea has multiple lights,
turning lanes, etc.




Page 311
1.




Page 312
1.




1.




Page 313
1.




Page 314
1.
2. Also, if visitors miss the driveway into the lot from Shea, they will need to make a U-turn on shea or drive through our
neighborhoods to make another attempt in. Both are dangerous.
3. The driveway, as drawn, is too shallow and there’s nowhere to go if a car coming from behind can’t stop.
4. There are 2 bus stops on either side of this lot (56th/Shea & 58th/Shea). There is too much going on to add more traffic
coming/going to that spot.
5. I’ve lived in this neighborhood for 12 of the 17 years I’ve been a realtor & have seen terrible accidents. In fact, I attached a
few screenshots from Google maps. Just east of our community in a median just east of Montrose/Aberdeen is a memorial
of someone who died at that spot in an accident. It has been a reminder to all who drive by it since at least 2018. I saw
flowers there last night- in 2022.




1.




Page 315
1.

Adjacent Commercial property adversely affects property values
I mentioned I have been a realtor in the community. Across the board, homes that are adjacent to commercial lots sell for less. It’s
a reality that you can see in the sales of homes regardless of the area. Certainly there are degrees of the values being affected, but
they are affected.

For these reasons, I request you deny this application to rezone this land. Thank you.

Camille Swanson
5833 E Onyx Ave, Paradise Valley, 85253


C Swanson
camsonwright@gmail.com




Page 316
Racelle Escolar

From: Ivan Steber
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:37 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: 6. Application # Z-43-22-2



6. Application #: Z-43-22-2

From: RE-43

To: R-O

Acreage: 1.37

Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard

Proposal: Residential Office

Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings

Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC 





Thispropertyislocatedinaprimeresidentialarea.Thisareaiscovetedbyfamilieswithchildrenbecauseofthebiglots
andgreatschoolsinthecommunity.ScottsdaleUnifiedSchoolDistrictshasthefollowingschoolsforchildren4y.o.Ͳ18
y.o.:CherokeeElementary,CocopahMiddleSchool,ChaparralHighSchool.

ParadiseValleyisawonderfulcommunitytoliveinbecauseoftheopenspaceandlackofbusinesses.Itisanexcellent
placetoridebikes,goforwalksorrun.Wehavelivedinthecommunitysince2009andloveit.

Myoppositiontotherezoningisthatitwouldchangethemakeupofthecommunitybyrezoningittoacommercial
lot.SheaisabusythoroughfareconnectingScottsdale’s101Highwaywiththe51Highway.Turningthislotintoa
businesswouldbringmoretraffic,pollutionandpeople.Wealreadyhaveanincreaseofresidentsduringthewinter
monthsuntilspringbecauseofthesnowbirdsandvacationers.

ParadiseValleyneedsfamiliesmovingintothecommunity.

Cordiallyyours,

IvanSteber





Page 317
From: Peter Aiello
To: council.district2@phoenix.gov; council.district1@phoenix.gov; council.district3@phoenix.gov;
council.district4@phoenix.gov; council.district5@phoenix.gov; council.district6@phoenix.gov;
council.district7@phoenix.gov; council.district8@phoenix.gov; Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise
Valley VPC; Adrian G Zambrano; Mayor Gallego
Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 8:05:09 AM




To whom it may concern, I am adamantly against any zone changes that will allow commercial
construction on 56th st and Shea. I was born and raised in Phoenix, I have lived on 58th st south of
Shea for almost 20 years. The traffic on Shea now is horrible. I am a physician and surgeon who must
be able to physically respond to my hospitals within 30 min when called. The traffic is so bad and
unpredictable it threatens my job and patients wellbeing. The zone changes that allowed the
construction of the New Honors ED on Shea east of Tatum was maliciously and cleverly lobbied for
at the detriment of the neighboring citizens that lobbied against it. This process is almost criminal in
the way the zoning was engineered and manipulated against the neighborhood wishes. The traffic
now is already miserable. I am totally against any commercial development that would further
disrupt the traffic with more congestion, parking and noise. P

J. Peter Aiello MD
AzOTS Medical Director
Paiello@azots.com




Page 318
ZĐǀĚϭϭͬϮϵͬϮϬϮϮ
Re: Item #4, Z-43-22 rezoning request
Traffic and parking within the subdivision:
I live on 57th Street. Our neighborhood of larger homes is not commercial at all.
Neighbors, including children and pets, take walks and bicycle down the sidewalk-free
streets. We enjoy the neighborhood we have created in Country Club Acres and don’t
want increased traffic from a business.
The developer’s representative has suggested that entrance to their proposed facility
via Shea Blvd will assure this commercial office would not affect the neighborhood
streets. However, it has been pointed out that their customers may find parking on 57 th
street is their preference to avoid exiting the business directly onto Shea Blvd. They
then would travel down our quiet 57th Street. This is a sidewalk free street, where
children and adults walk and bicycle on a regular basis.
Even those who park on site at this business may drive through our neighborhood after
they leave the business, if they wish to head west. Rather than take a risky U-turn on
busy Shea Boulevard, business customers may turn right onto 58 th St, then again at
Mountainview, and again at 56th St to reach the nearest traffic signal. 58th Street also a
quiet sidewalk free street, where children and adults walk on a regular basis.
The developer’s representative has suggested the office building will only be used
roughly from 9 to 5. Yet, he has not denied that the property could often be used for
receptions and events in the evening and weekends. The very intent to place the
developer’s high-end automobiles into a massive garage suggests that this facility could
be the site of frequent gatherings with the cars as a focal point. Such events could draw
many client vehicles, with parking for those clients overflowing into our neighborhood
on 57th and 58th streets. Again, commercial client cars travelling on our quiet sidewalk
free streets, where children and adults walk and bicycle on a regular basis.
As one of the many neighbors who enjoys taking frequent walks on the surface of our
quiet streets, I am often joined by my 2nd grade granddaughter. I want this
neighborhood to remain safe. There was an accident with multiple fatalities at the
corner of Shea and 57th Street shortly after I moved here. Memorial crosses were there
for a long time.
Please do not allow this danger to come down our street. Please members of this
board, do not approve a zoning change harming the character and safety of our
neighborhood.


Linda Killian
Page 319
Racelle Escolar

From: Lissa Erickson
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:48 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: Commentary on Planning Commission 12/1/22 hearing, Case #6, application Z-43-22-2
Attachments: Rezone application L. Erickson opposition - Attachments -11-29-22.pptx




November28,2022

To:ThePhoenixPlanningCommission

DearmembersoftheCommittee,

MynameisLissaErickson.Iamahomeownerandresidentat10020N.58thStreet,ScottsdaleAZ85253,part
oftheCountryClubAcrescommunity,livingwithinlessthanonehalfmileofthevacantloton57thStreetand
Sheacurrentlyunderreviewforarequestforrezoning.Wehavelivedinourhomefor31years.Iamwriting
thisletterinoppositiontoRezoningproposalZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2,inwhicharequestisbeingmadetoconvertthislot
fromitscurrentREͲ43(singlefamily)designationtoRO(RestrictedCommercial)designation.
I,andmyfamily,andvirtuallyeveryresidentinproximitytothislotstandincompleteoppositiontothis
rezoningattempt.Contrarytothenarrativeputforwardbytheapplicantsforthisrezoning,thereisnothing
butharmthatwouldcometotheCountryClubAcrescommunityandsurroundingneighborhoodsfromthis
proposedchange.WehavecollectivelytriedtoarticulatetotheapplicantsandthePlanningCommitteewhy
thisisso,butunfortunatelyaconsistentlybiasedrewriteoftheissuesinvolvedbytheapplicanthasmuddled
thefactssurroundingthisapplication.IasktheCommissiontoreviewtheinformationinthisletterandother
opposinglettersprovidedbyresidentsdirectlyimpactedbythisproposal;doathoroughfactcheckofthe
claimsmadebytheapplicant;andrejecttherezoningapplicationasbothfundamentallyunnecessaryfor
successfuldevelopmentoftheproperty,flawedinitsjustification,andmarkedlydamagingonmanyfronts,
notonlyfortheaffectedproximateneighborhoodbutalsothegreaterParadiseValleyVillageareatowhich
CountryClubAcresbelongs.
Brieflyahistoryofourcommunityandhowwehavereachedthispoint.CountryClubAcresistheleading,
southernedgeoftheareaknownasParadiseValleyVillage,thenorthernmostsectionofPhoenix(see
Attachment1).ParadiseValleyVillageisconsistentlyrankedbyresidentsandrealtorsasoneofthebest
placestoliveinthegreaterPhoenixarea,inlargepartbecauseofitsproximitytoScottsdaleandParadise
Valley;withCountryClubAcresbeingdirectlyadjacenttotheParadiseValleyTownship,whichliesacross
MountainViewRoad.MedianhomepricesinParadiseValleyVillagerunatapproximately$600,000witha
rangeof$200Ͳ$900kͲexceptforonemajorexception:thehomesinCountryClubAcres,whichnowandonly
recentlycommandpricesof$2,500,000to$5,000,000.Thereisareasonforthat,whichtiesverycloselyto
CountryClubAcres’developmenthistory.

Page 320
CountryClubAcreswasoriginallyspecificallyenvisionedandcharteredasaoneͲacreplus,singleͲfamily
residenceandhorsepropertycommunity,designedtomaintaintherurallookandfeeloftheNorth/North
EastPhoenixareawithinthebroadercontextofafastgrowing,newlysuburbanPhoenixcommunity.Most
homesbuiltatthattimewerequitesmall,simpleranchͲstylehomesonlargelots,onwhichmany
homeownerskepthorses,barns,andcorrals.Thissemiruralcharacterremainedintactupthroughthemid
90’s,withmanyoftheoriginalhomesremaininginplace,eithermaintainedintheiroriginalstateor,ina
numberofcases,beginningtoshowquiteabitofwearandtear.However,duringtheGreatRecession
beginningin2006–2008,andthenoverthenextseveralyearsuntilthePhoenixeconomytrulybeganto
recover,manyoftheCountryClubAcreshomeswentintoreceivershiporweresimplyabandonedin
place.Thequality,safety,andhomevaluesintheareadroppedprecipitously;somuchso,thatinonecasean
abandonedhomeon57thStreetwasoccupiedbydrugaddictsquatterswhopreyedonourcommunityfor
almostafullyear,beforetheirdiscoveryandapprehensioninamanhuntbythePhoenixPoliceDepartment.
Ourcommunity,oursafety,theintrinsicvalueofourhomes,badlydamagedinthistimeframe,didnotseem
likelytoeverrecover.
Butthen,beginningintheearlyyearsof2010tothecurrentdate,ourneighborhoodhasseenacomplete
transformation.DrivenbyourproximitytoScottsdaleandParadiseValley;Phoenixconstructioncodes;our
largelotsizes;favorableschooldistricts;andour85253ZIPcode,developersfoundtheCountryClubEstates
areaparticularlyattractiveforaremake.Propertieswerepurchasedatverylowvalues,theoriginalhomes
wereknockeddown,andreplacedwithlarge,upscaleresidencesof5,000Ͳ6,000squarefeetormore,largely
modeledafterthedesignsandqualityofthehomesofourParadiseValleyneighbors.Inlessthantenyears,
propertyvaluesinCountryClubAcrespropertiesskyrocketedfromaslittleas$300Ͳ$400k,tomorethan
$2,000,000Ͳ$4,000,000–andmore.Sellers,andbuyers,redefinedperceptionsofthisareaasessentiallyan
extensionofParadiseValley,justoneblocktooursouthacrossMountainViewRoad.Andinfact,applicants
inthiscurrentrezoningrequesthavebeenthebeneficiariesofthisturnaround,havingbuiltanumberofthe
homesinthisveryareawhichthensoldatveryhighvalues.
Thisextremeturnaroundhasgonewellbeyondbenefitingnewhomeownersandproperty
developers.PerceivedasaleadingedgeintothehighͲendhomesintheneighboringParadiseValleytownship,
ourvaluationshavehadaspillovereffectonneighboringcommunities,withdevelopersandpotentialbuyers
lookingwellbeyondtheCountryClubAcresneighborhoodforsimilarurbanrenewalopportunities.Country
ClubEstates,directlytotheEastofourneighborhood,isnowexperiencingmuchthesameuptickin
valuations,albeitonsmallerlotsizes.ParadiseValleyresidentsacrossMountainViewnowenjoyabordering
neighborhoodwithhomequalitiesparallelingtheirown,ratherthanvacantorabandonedlots.We,infact,
actasabufferforthatcommunityfromShea,aswecontinuetopressforsaferstreetsandadherencetolower
speedlimitsastrafficcomesoffSheaintoourjointcommunities.AndtheCityofPhoenixhasbenefited
substantially,aswellͲnotonlygainingaperfectroadmapofhowurbanrenewalcanbeachieved;butalsoa
new,moreaffluentresidentandpropertytaxbase,sincerelycommittedtocontributingtocontinuedgrowth
inthesuccessandprosperityofthegreaterPhoenixarea.
However,allthegainstoourcommunitiesarisingoutofthissuccessstorywillbeputseverelyatriskif
rezoningrequestZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2isapproved.Whilethereplacementofolder,smallerhomeswithlargerupscale
residenceshascertainlycontributedtooverallgainsinthepropertyvaluesinourarea,theextremeuptickin
valuationswehaveexperienced–insomecases,closetotentimesthevalueofthesepropertiesjusttenyears
agoͲhasbeendriven,primarily,bythequalitativevaluethebuyingmarketnowplacesonourarea,whichisin
largepartdrivenbytheirperceptions:oftheareaasanoffshoottoourPVneighbors;accesstoourexcellent


Page 321
schools;andtheclearambiencenowofCountryAcresasasafe,familyͲorientedneighborhood.Everynew
homeownerweknowinCountryClubEstatesarticulatesasenseoftheirgoodfortuneinfindingahomeinthis
newlyrenovated,neighborlycommunity.They–and‘oldschool’homeownerslikeus,whohavelivedand
breathedourcommunity’schallenges–takerealprideintherejuvenationofanareawhichcouldsoeasily
havetakenadifferentroute,andfallenintolongtermdisrepairanddevaluation.
Allitwouldtaketocompletelyreversethisnewlyearnedrenovation,wouldbeachangeinthebuying
community’sperceptionofthisareaasanupscale,idyllic,offshootneighborhoodoftheParadiseValleyand
Scottsdaleareas.Andthisperceptionwouldmostcertainlybeseverelyaffectedbycommercialproperties–
evenundertheROdesignationͲencroachingontotheCountryClubAcresfootprint.Isay‘properties’because
theCountryClubAcresresidentsandourneighboringcommunitiesareundernoillusion:ifonehomeinthis
areaisredesignatedtotheROzoningprovision,moreapplicationsforthiszoningwillbeimmediately
submitted–and,infact,arealreadybeinganticipatedinothersalesofferingsinCountryClubAcres(see
Attachment2;butmoreonthis,later).
DuringpriorCommitteediscussionperiods,ithasbeensuggestedthattheonlypropertyownerswhowould
beaffectedbythisrezoningchangewouldbethosecontiguoustotheproperty.Ithasalsobeensuggested
thattheCountryClubAcrescommunityneeds‘protecting’fromShea,viasingleresidencebusinessesfronting
ontoShea,inamannersimilartobufferinginplacealongIndianSchoolRoad;and,infact,oneCommittee
memberusedthenewMountainsideFitnesscompoundasashiningexampleofsuccessalongShea,forthis
bufferingconceptinourarea.NoneoftheseassertionshasanybasisinfactinCountryClubAcres.First,in
termsofwhowouldbeaffectedbythischange;andhow.CountryClubAcresandthesurrounding
communitiesareexperiencingametamorphosisofourpropertyvaluesspecificallybecauseweareseenasa
quiet,upscaleresidentialcommunity,inlinewithhomesinthetownshipofParadiseValley.Thereisareason
commercialdesignationssuchasthatproposedinZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2aresoveryrareinParadiseValley:Nooneinan
upscalepropertywantstoliveinacommunitystaringatthebacksideofacommercialproperty.Allofour
homeowners,particularlyournewermemberswhohavereliedandinvestedsoheavilyinCountryClubAcres’
renewal,willbevulnerabletothedowngradeinperception–andresultingpropertydevaluationͲwhich
woulddrivefromanychangetoCountryClubAcres’currentzoningfromsingleͲfamilyusage,tocommercial
usage.Theapplicants’assertionsaside,acommercialredesignation–andtheprecedentthiswouldsetfor
otherpropertiescontiguoustothispropertyalongShea–wouldbeaseriousblowtotheupswinginproperty
valuesinthisarea;withnopossiblerecourseorremedy,oncecommercializationwasestablished.Second,
assertionsonthepartoftheapplicantsthatourcommunityneeds“buffering”fromShea,isanartificial
constructdevelopedbytheapplicantforthesoleandentirepurposeofcreatingajustificationforasituation
thathassolelybeeninflicteduponourneighborhood,bytheapplicantsthemselves:priortothepurchaseof
thislotbytheapplicants,aperfectlybeautifulresidentialhomeexistedonthislot[SeeAttachment3]–which
wasonlytorndownbytheapplicantaftertheirpurchaseofthelot–creatingtheverysituationthat,now,the
applicantsaysourneighborhoodneedstobe‘protected’against,becauseof‘emptylots’alongShea.Itishard
toseeanythingbutadisingenuousattempttocreatethefaçadeofaproblemwherenoneexists,solelyasa
meansofjustifyingarezoningwhichourneighborhoodneitherwants,needs,norwouldbenefitfrom.If
furtherproofoftheabsurdityoftheapplicants’claimisneeded,oneneedonlylookatrecenthomevaluations
andsalesalongSheatoseethatresidentialhomesdirectlyalongthisSheacorridor–regardlessofafrontage
roadornotͲdo,indeedsell,andsellwell[SeeAttachment4].Theartificialconstructoftherebeingnoother
viableoptionbesidesacommercialdevelopmentforthislothasnobasisinfactintheCountryClubAcres
neighborhood.


Page 322
Iwon’tspeaktothesafetyconcernsinherentintheideaofputtingablinddrivewayhalfwaybetween57thand
58thStreets;theonlycorrectwaytoaddressthiswouldbetoobtainatruesafetyimpactstudyforthesite,
whichhadnotbeendoneasofthePlanningCommittee’slastmeeting,inspiteoftheapplicant’sassertionsto
thecontrary.However,theexceedinglyconfuseddiscussionheldintheCommitteeabouttheCommittee’s
responsibilitytodeterminewhathazardstheirapprovalofthisapplicationwouldcause,didraiseserious
concernsforourfamilyandforourcommunityintermsoftheCommittee’sabilitytoeffectivelyreviewthis
applicationwithaneyetoitsimpactonthesurroundingcommunity.Anyonewhothinksplacingacommercial
blinddrivewayontoSheawithanunknownamountoftraffichalfwaybetween57thand58thStreets,whichare
onlyatenthofthemileapart,hasnounderstandingofnorregardforthevolumeoftrafficandthehigh
speedsanddrivinghabitsofdriversonSheainthisarea.Itisalreadydifficultnottoberearendedwhen
makingarightturnonto57thand58thStreets–SpeedingSheadriversareinattentiveandregularly‘tailgate’
anyonegoingatlegalspeedlimitsonthisstretchoftheroad–andtheideaofinstructingthenewbusiness’s
customerstocrossalllanesofSheatrafficinordertomakeaUturnonanyoftheturnlanesintooncoming
westboundSheatraffic,aswasdiscussedbytheCommitteeintheirlastsession,onlyshowstooclearlythe
lackofcomprehensiontheCommitteehasrelatedtothisissue.Theirfinalconclusion–thatultimatelyit
wouldbeuptoCitytrafficcontrolto‘seewhatcomesoutofthesituationthenmakeanychangesnecessary’–
inotherwords,usingourcommunityasguineapigsfornewaccidentlevelsandonlythenaddressingthe
problemscreatedbythisrezoningͲonlyshowsmoreclearlythecompletelackofaccountabilitysomeofthe
Committeemembersfelttowardsaddressingtheveryrealsafetyconcernsourcommunityhasforour
families,ourneighbors,anddriversonShea.If,inresponsetothisconcern,therezoningapplicantswereto
respondthattheydonotexpecttoseemuchcustomertrafficattheirsite,weneedonlylooktothe
applicant’soriginaldrawingplanswithits26Ͳcar,4,000squarefoot‘garage’,torealizethattherewill,indeed
beheavytrafficofsomesortoutofthisfacility,regardlessofanyassertionstothecontraryfromthe
applicants.
Beyondtheaboveconcernsregardingtheextremelynegativeimpactthiszoningrequestwouldhaveonour
neighborhoodambience,propertyvalues,andourverysafety,Iwouldalsorespectfullyliketoexpressmy
extremediscomfortwiththeproceduralfailingsofthePlanningCommitteetodateinregardstothis
application.InthelastPlanningCommissionmeetingonNovember7,2022relatedtothisrezoningrequest:
ͲNeighborhoodoppositionspeakerswereconsistentlytargetedforearlycutoffbeforetheirtwominutes’
timewindowswereup;
ͲOurattorney’srepresentative,whohadbeendonatedatleast10minutesbyotherneighborhoodresidents
wascutoffatthetwominutemarkandreceived,atbest,onlyanotherminuteortwoinwhichtospeak,
clearlyharminghisabilitytorepresentourcommunity;
ͲCommitteemembers,whenconfrontedwithinconsistenciesintheapplicants’informationandassertions,
andarticulatingtheirownconfusionontheseassertions,failedtocallforanyfactͲcheckingoftheapplicants’
data(orincertaininstances,ignoredCommitteememberswhodidcallforthisfactchecking);
ͲCommitteememberssaidthatthehearingwasbeingheldto‘approvetherezoning’,nottolistentodataon
bothsidesoftheissue;
ͲAtleastoneCommitteemembercalledalloftheveryapplicableandprofessionalcommentaryfromour
residentialoppositionmembers‘fluff’thattheywouldnotlistentounderanycircumstances;




Page 323
ͲThreeoftheCommitteemembers,inspiteoftwoclearvotesofatiebytheCommittee,insistedon
continuingrevotes,evensayingatonepointthattheywouldcontinuetocallforrevotesuntiltherezoning
waspassed;
ͲACommitteememberfalselyassertedthatthepropertyownerproximatetothesouthofthe57thandShea
lot,hadapprovedoftherezone–anassertionthatisnotonlyabsolutelyfalse,butbecameakeypointintheir
efforttofinallyswayatleastoneCommitteemembertochangetheirvote;
ͲAndfailedtoholdoneoftheirownmembersaccountableforablatantconflictofinterestrelatedtothis
case,inwhichAnnaSepic,thelistingagentforanotherpropertyat56thandShea,standstopersonallygainby
piggybackingofftheanticipatedcommercialrezoningofthepropertyat57thandShea[SeeAttachment2].
Ifanyoneoftheseissueshadoccurred–evenperhapstwo–onemightconcludethattheCommitteedidnot
activelytrytobiastheirdiscussioninfavoroftheapplicant;butthattheywereonlyperhapsignorantoftheir
ownstatedproceedingsinreviewingzoningcases.Buttheblatantnatureoftheaboveissues,andthe
consistentleanofallthesefailingsinfavoroftheapplicant,makesitextremelydifficulttobelieveanything
butthattheCommitteewasledbysomeofitsmembershiptoaspecificdecisionwithoutanobjective,
rational,andethicalreviewofthespecificissuesrelatingtothiscase.
WhiletheCityofPhoenixhasbeencalledoutmanytimesbyitscitizenrytofieldanEthicsCommittee
specificallybecauseofsituationslikethis,andhasfailedforyearstodoso,thisinnowayabsolvesthe
PlanningCommitteesandCommissionoftheirresponsibilitytocarryouttheirdutiesinanethicalmannerwith
fullrecognitionoftheirfiduciaryresponsibilitytothecitizensofPhoenix.Justbecausethereisnowatchdog,
doesnotmeanthatethicsandaccountabilitycanbethrownoutthewindowbyafewplayersinthereview
chainwithapersonalagenda.
IcallonthePlanningCommissiontofollowduediligenceinreviewingthisrezoningapplication.Ibelieve,asdo
myneighbors,ourParadiseValleyneighbors,ourCountryClubEstateneighbors,thatthisapplicationserves
noonebuttheapplicant.Thereisnothingtobegained,andeverythingtobelost,byallowingoneproperty
ownertobenefitattheveryrealexpenseofallothersinthecommunity.Iurgeyoutodotherightthing:
protectourcommunity;ourpropertyvalues;oursafety;andyourownCommitteepolicies,procedures,and
standardsofaccountability,andrejectrezoningproposalZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2.

Thankyouinadvanceforyourattentiontothismatter.

LissaErickson











Page 324
Attachments– LissaEricksonOppositionLetter
11/29/22
Page 325
RezoningProposalZͲ43Ͳ22Ͳ2
Page 326
Attachment2– Listingforpropertyat56th andShea,listingagentAnnaSepic




Page 327
Attachment3
57th Streethomepriortoapplicant’sknockdown




Page 328
Attachment4
Recenthomesales– Proximateto57th StreetandShea




Page 329
Page 330
Page 331
Page 332


















 
 7
-$,!($
,!%+
, *'- '-,
, 
%,!&5
+'&
'**!+
!&+!&-,
)&,'
&$*
-&*
, 
?ML
2'&!&
'
*

!$$
/!,
-&+!*$
*+!&,+6
' %+ %
+*
)* %+*
*
%, *%*
+&
+
% &)&&8

+-+,
, 
?
*2'&
/!$$

(*'.!
*$!
*'%
!++-+
-+
1
*'-(
'%
*+!&,+8




4

+ *
'-*
&! '* ''
/!,
, *
*'-(
'%+
'&
NP

,8
$$
*
$*$1
*
!$!,!+
/ *
'-*
 *!+ 
&
%'+,

*+(,
$*$1
*+!8
 1
*
  $
$

$
( 

6
, 
'%($,
'(('+!,
'
, 

(!,-*
, ,
/+
(!&,
'
, %8

'$
, %
/!,
!
**
&
*
'&
, ,
'-,
'-*
$*$1
('(-$,!'&
/*
+,
,'
$''#

$!#
*!%!&$+5
, !.+5
&
*''#+
1
-+!&
, 
/'*
&
'




,'
!&
+-(('*,
'*
, !+
(*'",8





/'-$
$+'
$!#
,'
0(*++
'
&%)%
/!,
, 
&-%*
'
,!%+
!,
/+
+,,
, *'- '-,
, !+
%,!&
, ,
, !+
:#
 "

%44433




*
'%%&,+
!&$-!&7


•
<,
+
$*1
((*'.
!,=
C*!,*,
P
,!%+
!&

*'/D

•
<
(*+'&$$1
'&;,
*
'-,
, 
+!&,-*+8
;.
+&
, 
$!&,
&
'.*
#/*+=

•

<((*'.

(*'",
'*

.$'(*
/ '
+
$*1
&,
'.*
#/*+=


•
<
*
"-+,
&
!&'*%,!.
'1
, ,
+
&'
.',!&
('/*
,'
!%(,
, !+=

•
< ,
!+
, 
"'
'
, 
'%%!,,
,'
(-+
, 
(*'",
, '-
,'
($&&!&=

•
<
'&;,
*
'-,
$-
&
+,,!=
C&! '* ''
'(('+!,!'&D



 
"'
'
, 
*!+
$$1
!$$
!,1
'-&!$
!+
,'
<*(*+&,
, 
('($
/ '
$!.
&
/'*#
!&
$$
+%&,+
&
'*( !
*+

'
, 
.!$$8=
-*
.'!+
+ '-$

*8
 1
/*
&',8



,*
, 
'.%*
P

*!&5

%!$
, 
1'*5
'-&!$%%*+5
&

**!&
'

'&$!,
'
!&,*+,
.!'$,!'&
/ &


%%*
'
, 

%

%',!'&
'*

, !*
.',
!&
+-(('*,
'
, 
+-",
*2'&8

%%*
&
.'+
'%%*!$

*'#*
%%
' 
!+
,!.$1
%*#,!&

(*'(*,1
#&+
ABE
+
)&$
1&%
*
:BA:@@:@
)&$

:BA
+&

$,#+ $ #0

&$$) #
-#&'$%+8
 !+
!+

$*
'&$!,
'
!&,*+,
, ,
%,+
, 
*!,*!
+,,
$'/
1
, 
 +0
&
&% /
&)*3

&$$ ** &%*3
%
&$$ ++6*
#&$
"+
&%# +
&
%+)*+
, 5
,
+,,+
E
&$$ ** &%
$$)
*&,#
#)


&%# +
&
%+)*+
%
$,*+
%&+
')+  '+
&)
-&+
!&
, 
!+!'&
'*
,!'&
!
*$
(*'(*,1
'/&
'*
&%+)&##
1

, 
'*>'%%!++!'&>.!$$
%%*
'*
*$,!.
*$!2+
(*,!-$*!2
*%
'*
% +8
+&)*
+&
+)$ %
')+ ,#) 1
*%


Page 333
'*
% +
%#,7
/&*+ !(
'*
 %% #
%+)*+
!&

')&')+0
. + %
#&*
')&/ $ +0
;%)##0
D>>
+
&)
#**B
'
, 
,

(*'(*,1
1
, 
'*>'%%!++!'&>'%%!,,
%%*+
,!'&8
 !+
!+
&',
&
0 -+,!.
$!+,
'
,'*+8E




*
!+!'&
&',
,'
*-+
*+$
/+
!,-$
&
*#$++5
&

$*
0($'!,,!'&
'
*
*'$
+
'%%!,,
%%*8
%*+

*
0(,
,'
 *
,'
, 
*-$+
&
*-$,!'&+
'
, 
 *,*8




-*!&

!+-++!'&
/!,

!,1
'
 '&!0
$&&!&
&
.$'(%&,
%($'15

/+
!&'*%
, *
!+
&'
, !+
'%%!,,
,'

*.!/
, !+
!++-8
 !+
*,+
&
&.!*'&%&,
*!(
'*
'**-(,!'&5
*'&1!+%5
&
#
''*
$!&+8




%
+!&*$1
/'**!
'-,
, 
+ *
%'-&,
'
#*
%&)$+ &%
&$$,% +
+&
&%*+ +,%+*
%
&$$ ++
$$)*
$!#8

 '+
!&
'(('+!,!'&
*
!+*!,5
*-+ 
'5
&',
*5
&
!+**
1
, 
(($!&,8

*

&! '* ''
/ '
.

/'*#
'$$,!.$1
,'
'*%

*++*'',+
%(!&
!&
  
%
5



 &#
1'-5

 &
*&#+

JIIIO

NQ

,5
*!+
$$15

QNKNL





Page 334
Re: Item #4, Z-43-22 rezoning request
My name is Richard Pasquale, I live at 10210 N. 57th St, just five houses away from the
residential parcel in question. I strongly object to this commercial proposal.
1. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEDICATED TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
Our neighborhood is exclusively zoned R-43 for single family homes. The proposed R-O
zoning is contrary to:
• the community master plan,
• the character of the neighborhood,
• and the wishes of the homeowners in this neighborhood.

2. THE DEVELOPER’S CHARACTERIZATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS
FALSE
The developer’s attorney distorts the extent of non-residential activity in our
neighborhood. There is no commercial development in our neighborhood. It is true that
there are two places of worship and several senior living facilities. However, those
senior living facilities are in large residential homes that are completely inconspicuous.
They have NO signage and virtually no traffic.
Moreover, the fact is the fitness facility their attorney mentions is to the west some
distance, moreover that facility and the adjacent forthcoming healthcare facility have
caused great and continuing distress among homeowners near there as discussed in
multiple articles in the community newspaper. Similarly, an R-O zoned office building
further west on Shea at 37th St has also caused significant and continuing chagrin for
homeowners there.
3. THOSE SUPPORTING THE REQUEST DON’T EVEN LIVE IN OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD.
The developer encouraged their friends, customers, and the family members of those
friends and customers to support this request. However, these people don’t live in our
neighborhood! The homeowners in Country Club Acres are totally opposed to this
request that would transform our neighborhood in very harmful ways.


4. THE DEVELOPER’S RENDERINGS ARE DECEPTIVE
The developer emphasizes the appearance of the proposed buildings, saying they were
designed by a residential architect and are compatible with the neighborhood. However,
all of their renderings leave out all signage. The appearance of this parcel would be
incredibly different with signage.



Page 335
5. THE SIGN ORDANCE (705) DESTROYS THE “R” IN R-O
As a “Nonresidential activity in a residential district” there are extensive forms of signs
allowed, wrecking any hint of a residential neighborhood.
a. A ground sign 5’ tall
b. Wall signs at a height of up to 15’. Based upon the formula, with the two
buildings roughly extending a combined 300 linear feet on the two streets, there
could be 75 square feet of wall signs
c. A marquee
d. Brightly illuminated signs in our dark sky neighborhood sans street lights.
e. Canopies and awnings with signage.
f. 30% of the windows can be covered with signage.
g. Directional signs with the business name
h. Pedestrian signs
i. Lease signs
j. Temporary signs
k. Moreover the signage code “Flexibility Provisions” (705E), permit businesses to
submit plans for even higher limits on signage

6. THE DEVELOPER REFUSED MULTIPLE REQUESTS TO LIMIT SIGNAGE
I personally spoke to and wrote to legal staff in Attorney Morris’ office multiple times
over the course of many weeks suggesting a stipulation that would permit ground,
directional, pedestrian, rental, temporary, and other signage, but exclude signage on the
buildings that would be viewable from the street.
(A stipulation permitting signs under zoning code provisions 705.D.2, 705.D.4, 705.D.7,
705.D.8, 705.D.9, and 705.D.10, but prohibiting signs on the buildings which are
viewable from the street that would otherwise be allowable under 705.D.3, 705.D.3.d(2),
705.D.5, and 705.D.6.)
Without such a stipulation, signage could eviscerate the residential nature of the
neighborhood and be very detrimental to our home values. The developer refused.

7. THERE IS NOTHING RESIDENTIAL ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL
Buildings with commercial signage do not fit in with our neighborhood in any way.
While attorney Morris may attempt to rebut this concern by suggesting that this owner
will likely have only limited signage, such claims are not binding on either this owner or
especially future owners. Without a binding and constrictive stipulation, there is nothing
about this and future R-O uses that is residential. Its ruining another neighborhood with
commercial development.




Page 336
8. THE DEVELOPER IS NOT ACCOMODATING IN MULTIPLE WAYS
It is not just signage where there is a failure to engage in stipulations that limit this
commercial intrusion into our R-43 neighborhood. There were clear requests other
homeowners made at public meetings, asking that there be no access from 57 th Street.
Yet the developer’s renderings show an entry directly from 57th Street. As a
consequence, clients of business(es) there can be expected park on our quiet residential
street. This quiet street is not lined with sidewalks. Children, adults, and pets go for
walks and bicycle down this quiet street on a regular basis. Commercial traffic creates
genuine safety concerns.

9. THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BEEN HONEST ABOUT THE PROPOSED
GARAGE
In the initial and subsequent presentations to the neighborhood, Attorney Morris clearly
stated that this building would be used to house the owner’s high-end vehicle collection.
This raised neighborhood concerns that the facility could be the site of frequent night and
weekend gatherings of prospective clients or parties with the cars as a focal point. Such
events could draw many client vehicles, with parking for those clients overflowing into
our neighborhood on 57th and 58th streets.

Just recently the developer submitted a new drawing claiming they only plan to hold four
cars and Attorney Morris disingenuously stated that there was never a plan to hold a large
vehicle collection. Even with a small collection, we don’t want commercial clients and
possibly high performance cars zipping up and down our streets where children and
adults are trying to safely stroll. Our subdivision is composed of very quiet resident
streets, with no sidewalks. It is also a dark sky neighborhood with no streetlights.

10. TRAFFIC FOR FUTURE R-O USES WOULD BE EVEN WORSE
A zoning change is lasting, it’s not just about the immediate use proposed. Attorney
Morris strives to minimize the planned parking and traffic from Regal Homes’ proposed
use. If rezoned R-O, this owner or future owners could change their use of the proposed
buildings to house multiple commercial office tenants which could bring significant
vehicle traffic, completely transforming what have always been safe, quiet streets.

11. THIS PROPOSAL DESTROYS ECONOMIC VALUE
Even though Country Club Acres is a very small subdivision, we’ve worked hard to
invest in our homes in terms of both creating a neighborhood and creating economic
value. Collectively our homes have a market value far in excess of $100 million. A
deviation from R-43 zoning would destroy home values in this Phoenix neighborhood.




Page 337
12. THE DEVELOPER MISCHARACTERIZES THIS PARCEL
The developer’s lawyer has been misleadingly characterizing this parcel as a vacant lot,
as though that has always been situation. The fact is there was a beautiful single-family
home on this parcel for decades until it was recently demolished by a preceding
developer and there can be a single-family home in that location again.




13. THIS R-43 ZONED PARCEL FACES A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR HOME
As a single-family home, this parcel fronts 57th Street, not Shea Blvd. It faces an existing
multimillion dollar home, nearly 6,000 square feet in size (10438 N 57 th St).




Page 338
14. NON-DESTRUCTIVE ALTERNATIVE
The developer emphasizes that a skilled residential architect has designed the buildings
they propose with a goal is to impress customers with the quality of their firm’s
construction work and that the parcel will have landscaping to help shield the property
from Shea Blvd. Well, an attractive design, quality construction, and landscaping would
equally assure that a residential home can again be successfully placed on that very same
parcel.


15. THE PARADISE VALLEY VILLAGE COMMITTEE CORRUPTLY FAILED TO
SUPPORT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD
The committee voted 7-7 on motions to approve the request and approve the request with
stipulations. This result was a consequence of member Sepic failing to disclose a conflict
of interest and failing to recuse herself. Instead. she argued in favor of the request and
voted for the request. We in the neighborhood were muted in the meeting, unable to raise
alarms at this. Meanwhile, Attorney Morris was open to continue giving commentary,
including giving his thoughts on stipulations.
After the first vote, stipulations were proposed that were either token ones or stipulations
that the board said at the time were likely not even enforceable. Seven members again
voted against it and corrupt Sepic voted in favor, creating another tie. The chairperson
then threatened those opposed that no stipulations would be recommended unless they
changed their votes. Regrettably, two capitulated to the threat.




Page 339
16. DEVIATING FROM R-43 ZONING WOULD PERMANENTLY WRECK THE
NEIGHBORHOOD
A zoning change is lasting, it’s not just about these proposed buildings. If rezoned R-O,
there is not a single person on this board that can know how blatantly commercial future
offices at this location might be.

This owner or future owners could change their use of the proposed buildings to house
multiple commercial office tenants with a multitude of signs. They could later seek to
expand within that R-O zoning, creating a more commercial looking and higher traffic
office building, such as a 25’ tall (two story) office complex, further ruining the single-
family home nature of our neighborhood.

Regal American should build commercial offices where the master plan permits, not
wrecking a neighborhood There is a double-digit vacancy rate for existing office space in
Phoenix. There is no reason to destroy our neighborhood with this request for a
commercial office when there is already plenty of office space available in non-
residential areas. If the applicant needs new construction of an office, there are ample
properties available that are already properly zoned for that purpose.


17. IT IS NOT INEVITABLE THAT ALL OF SHEA BLVD BE COMMERCIALIZED.
It is a false argument to suggest that all of Shea will eventually be commercialized,
this can only occur if planning bodies fail to protect neighborhoods such as ours.
This board should not dismiss the universal concerns of the homeowners in our
neighborhood to deviate from the zoning and the master plan. Please support and protect
our neighborhood.


Richard Pasquale




Page 340
Racelle Escolar

From: Sofia Steber
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2022 5:51 PM
To: PDD Planning Commission
Subject: 6. Application #: Z-43-22-2



6. Application #: Z-43-22-2

From: RE-43
To: R-O
Acreage: 1.37
Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
Proposal: Residential Office
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC 



HiͲ

I’velivedinParadiseValleysinceIwas4yearsold.I’veattendedallthreeC’s:CherokeeElementary,CocopahMiddle
School,andChaparralHighSchool.Ihavelovedgrowingupinthecommunitybecauseofit’slaidbackatmosphere.My
familyandIenjoyridingbikesandrunningaroundtheneighborhoods.WealsoenjoywalkingourdogJackson.

Ithinkit’simportanttokeepthecornerof57thStreetandSheaasresidential.I’vebeendrivingfortwoyearsandhave
noticedhowdangerousSheacanbe.Therearealotofdriversincludingcommercialtrucksthatdrivelikeit’stheGrand
Prix.Pleasekeepthiscornerfamilyfriendly.

SofiaSteber







Page 341
 #!
  "+
 
'"

6637

"



 $$#

86365

21.42.33





 
$
)
 ",




'"$



"

&
* %)+
#
'
#
$"
 !)+

"
 #-

)
'




$
  "

' "
'$

"
 #

%"
"#$
 %#
'
'
 &
$
"* 

3131-



$
)
'#
%"
!" ## 
(!"
'$

"
 #
 &

) 
)$
'
 %

&
 !
 "+
'
'"
 "$%$
 %
$
#!
# 
$
'$
 $
"

&


!"# 
&+


"
 '
 "$%$
$

$
"#-


$
""#
$
$"
'
!" ! #
%+
'
#
 
  '"#
' %

  "
$
&
$"

%$#$
 !)

%"
 " 

%)
#%!! "$
)
"* 
 "$#
$
 '
$
$

# -

)

'



$ 
$
%"
"+

'
 !
$


"
 #
%"
 "#
# -






) %
 "
) %"
$+


 #!
  "





Page 342
Page 343
Page 344
Page 345
Page 346
Page 347
Page 348
Page 349
Page 350
ATTACHMENT H


REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
December 1, 2022

ITEM NO: 6
DISTRICT NO.: 2
SUBJECT:

Application #: Z-43-22-2
Location: Southeast corner of 57th Street and Shea Boulevard
From: RE-43
To: R-O
Acreage: 1.37
Proposal: Residential Office
Applicant: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC
Owner: 10441 North 57th Street Holdings
Representative: Jason Morris, Withey Morris, PLC

ACTIONS:

Staff Recommendation: Approval, subject to stipulations.

Village Planning Committee (VPC) Recommendation:
Paradise Valley 9/12/2022 Continued to October 3, 2022. Vote: 15-0.
Paradise Valley 10/3/2022 Continued to November 7, 2022. Vote: 15-0.
Paradise Valley 11/7/2022 Approval, per the staff recommendation (Addendum A), with
additional stipulations. Vote: 9-5.

Planning Commission Recommendation: Approval, per the staff memo, with an additional
stipulation.

Motion Discussion: N/A

Motion details: Commissioner Busching made a MOTION to approve Z-43-22-2, per the staff
memo dated December 1, 2022, with the addition of a stipulation that the lot shall not be
subdivided or split.

Maker: Busching
Second: Simon
Vote: 8-1 (Jaramillo)
Absent: None
Opposition Present: Yes

Findings:

1. The proposal will provide an appropriate transition between a major arterial street and
an established single-family neighborhood.

2. The proposal will provide an opportunity for a new small business to locate in
the Paradise Valley Village and serve the surrounding neighborhood.

3. The proposal will develop vacant land and as stipulated will incorporate design and
landscape features that are compatible with the surrounding land uses.


Page 351
Stipulations:

1. The development shall be in general conformance with the site plan date stamped
August 19, 2022 NOVEMBER 2, 2022 and elevations date stamped August 19, 2022
NOVEMBER 2, 2022, with specific regard to the inclusion of metal fascia, wood finish,
and stone veneer walls or split face block, as modified by the following stipulations
and approved by the Planning and Development Department.

2. THE DETACHED GARAGE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT EXCEED 4,615 SQUARE
FEET IN SIZE.

2.3. The maximum building height shall be 23 feet.

3.4. A minimum building setback of 15 feet shall be provided along the south property line.

4.5. A minimum 10-foot landscape setback shall be provided along the east property line
and planted with minimum 2-inch caliper trees placed 20 feet on center or in
equivalent groupings, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

5.6. The south landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch caliper
and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant trees, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

6.7. The north landscape setback shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-inch caliper
and minimum 50 percent 3-inch caliper large canopy, drought tolerant trees, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

7.8. The front yard setback along 57th Street shall be planted with minimum 50 percent 2-
inch caliper trees, minimum 25 percent 3-inch caliper trees, and minimum 25 percent
4-inch caliper trees to be placed 20 feet on center or in equivalent groupings, as
approved by the Planning and Development Department.

8.9. The developer shall maintain the exiting detached sidewalk landscape area located
between the back of curb and sidewalk along Shea Boulevard and replenish it to the
following standards, as approved by the Planning and Development Department.

a. Minimum 2-inch caliper single-trunk large canopy drought-tolerant shade trees
to provide a minimum 75% shade.

b. Drought tolerant shrubs and vegetative groundcovers maintained to a
maximum height of 24 inches to provide a minimum of 75% live coverage at
maturity.

Where utility conflicts exist, the developer shall work with the Planning and
Development Department on alternative design solutions consistent with a
pedestrian environment.

9. Where pedestrian walkways cross a vehicular path, the pathway shall be constructed
10. of decorative pavers, stamped or colored concrete, or other pavement treatments that
visually contrast parking and drive aisle surfaces, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

10. All uncovered surface parking lot areas shall be landscaped with minimum 2-inch
11. caliper size large canopy drought tolerant shade trees. Landscaping shall be
Page 352
dispersed throughout the parking area and achieve 25 percent shade at maturity, as
approved by Planning and Development Department.

11. A minimum of 4 bicycle parking spaces shall be provided through Inverted U and/or
12. artistic racks dispersed throughout the site and installed per the requirements of
Section 1307.H. of the Phoenix Zoning Ordinance, as approved by the Planning and
Development Department.

12. The developer shall dedicate minimum 55-feet of right-of-way and a 10-footwide
13. sidewalk easement for the south half of Shea Boulevard, as approved by the Planning
and Development Department.

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

14. In the event archaeological materials are encountered during construction, the
15. 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.

15. Prior to preliminary site plan approval, the landowner shall execute a Proposition 207
16. 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.

17. THE DEVELOPER SHALL REMOVE THE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS ONTO 57TH
STREET.

18. A MINIMUM 30-FOOT BUILDING SETBACK SHALL BE PROVIDED ALONG THE
SOUTH AND EAST PROPERTY LINES.

19. THE ARCHITECTURE SHALL BE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE. THE ELEVATIONS
SHALL CONTAIN DESIGN ELEMENTS OF RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

20. NO PARKING SHALL BE PERMITTED ON 57TH STREET. PRIOR TO
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER SHALL APPLY FOR
THE ON-STREET PARKING ZONES PROGRAM IN ORDER TO INSTALL NO
PARKING SIGNS ALONG 57TH STREET ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT SITE.

21. THE DETACHED GARAGE SHALL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF FOUR VEHICLES
SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE DETACHED GARAGE. PARKING SPACES, AS
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

22. THE DEVELOPER SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE STREET TRANSPORTATION
DEPARTMENT TO INSTALL NO U-TURN SIGNS AT THE 57TH STREET
INTERSETION.

THE PROPERTY SHALL NOT BE SUBDIVIDED OR SPLIT

23. HOURS OF OPERATION SHALL BE LIMITED TO MONDAY TO FRIDAY, 8:00 A.M.
TO 6:00 P.M., SATURDAY, 9:00 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M.
Page 353
24. SIGNAGE SHALL BE LIMITED TO ONE NON-DIRECTLY LIT SIGN, NOT TO
EXCEED 48 SQUARE FEET.

This publication can be made available in alternate format upon request. Please contact Angie
Holdsworth at (602) 329-5065, TTY use 7-1-1.




Page 354
ATTACHMENT I


CITY OF PHOENIX
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

FORM TO REQUEST PC to CC
I HEREBY REQUEST THAT THE CC HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON: 1/4/2023

APPLICATION NO/ Z-43-22-2 (SIGNATURE ON ORIGINAL IN FILE)
LOCATION Southeast corner of opposition x applicant
57th Street and
Shea Boulevard



APPEALED FROM: PC 10006 North 58th Street
December 1, 2022 Paradise Valley, Arizona 85253

PC DATE STREET/ADDRESS/CITY/STATE/ZIP
TO PC/CC CC
HEARING January 4, 2023 Brendan Franks
240-447-8309
Brendan.franks@gmail.com

CC DATE NAME / PHONE / EMAIL
REASON FOR REQUEST:


• Overwhelming neighborhood opposition
• Ethics violation
• Illegal spot zoning
• False or misrepresentation from applicant attorney
• Request for written protest


RECEIVED BY: Brad Wylam RECEIVED ON: 12/7/2022

Alan Stephenson
Joshua Bednarek Greg Harmon
Tricia Gomes Paul M. Li
Racelle Escolar Village Planner
Stephanie Vasquez GIS
Diana Hernandez Applicant
David Urbinato Adam Stranieri (for PHO Appeals)
Vikki Cipolla-Murillo




Page 355
Page 356
ATTACHMENT J



167-79-225A




167-79-041 167-79-042 167-79-043 167-79-044 167-79-045




SHEA BLVD




S:\Department Share\Information Systems\PL GIS\IS_Team\Core_Functions\Zoning\Petitions\Z-43-22\MXD\Z-43-22.mxd
168-04-019A 168-04-008A
168-04-007E



168-04-019B
168-04-008B 168-04-007F




57TH ST
168-04-018 58TH ST
168-04-009 168-04-006




Legend
168-04-017
168-04-010
168-04-005
Zoning Petition Area

Proposed Amendment Area
# of Lots/Tracts/Condos: 5/11 = 45%
Lots/Tracts/Condos
168-04-016 168-04-011 % Area = 1.07ac./5.63ac. = 19%
Signed Petition
168-04-004
3/4 VOTE NOT REQUIRED


Petition Verification Map
for Z-43-22-2
I 0 100 200 Feet Map prepared by City of Phoenix, Planning & Development Services Dept.
Page 357
12/8/22
Page 358
Page 359
Page 360
Page 361
Page 362
Page 363
Page 364
Page 365
Page 366
Page 367
Page 368
Page 369
Page 370
$77$&+0(17.

Racelle Escolar

From: Alex Popovic
Sent: Thursday, December 1, 2022 3:43 PM
To: Brendan Franks
Cc: Council District 2 PCC; Racelle Escolar; Alan Stephenson; PDD Paradise Valley VPC; Adrian G
Zambrano; Mayor Gallego; Council District 1 PCC; Council District 3 PCC; Council District 4; Council
District 5 PCC; Council District 6 PCC; Council District 7 PCC; Council District 8 PCC
Subject: Re: Rezoning Case: Z-43-22-2


GoodafternooncouncilpersonsandallCC’d

MynameisAlexPopovic,I’vebeenseatedonthevillagefor3yearsandwillbetheincomingchairperson,havingbeen
unanimouslyvotedinattheendofthispreviousmeetingbeingdiscussed.

IhaveknownAnnaviatherealestateanddevelopmentworldandasalumsfromtheASUmastersinrealestate
programsince2014.

Icantellyouwithouthesitationsheisoneofthemostforthright,honestanddiscerningpeopleIknowof.Ifthere’swas
anyinklingofaconflictofinterestshewouldhaverecusedherself,orataminimumaskedforguidance.

Tothedegreethemeetingwas“contentious”Iwouldsaynotfromanyvillagemember,andyes,whilethesehearings
cangetlongandcontested,andrightfullyso,novillagepersonactedinanyotherwaythanprofessionally.Thisgoesfor
myentiretimeonthevillagethepast3years.Mypeersaretheconsummateprofessionalsandit’sbeenapleasure
workingwithallofthem.

Asthemostactivevillageofall15weareanIntergralpartoftheprocessindevelopment.

Atthispoint,wevotedforaprojectinfavorofandwouldwelcomesomeclaritytoward“whyisthisbeingsentbackto
us?”

Respectfully,

AlexPopovic
602Ͳ800Ͳ0300



OnNov22,2022,at18:02,BrendanFrankswrote:


Councilman Waring,

My name is Brendan Franks, and presently live at 10006 N. 58th St Paradise Valley
AZ 85253[google.com] with my wife Meaghan and our two children ages 3 and 1. 

Our property is 9 lots (under .5 miles) away from the subject property/development
and want to make clear we are vehemently opposed to the rezoning effort in our
neighborhood. 


Page 371

Our chief concerns focus squarely on two main issues: traffic and safety. 

Traffic is already a major concern on Shea both East and West directions at nearly all
times of the day and evening.

While heading North on 57th towards Shea to access the Tatum/Shea commercial
corridor, making a left is a daunting task. In the morning, commuters on Shea are
rushed to get to work making hasty turns and hazardous lane switches, sometimes
under traffic lights to inch closer to their destination at any cost. We see this often
next to a school located at 56th and Shea, where speed limits of just 15mph are hardly
adhered to. In the evening, we hear drag racing.

Adding just one extra vehicle from the proposed redevelopment will only make this
dangerous left all but impossible. In fact, after purchasing our home, we learned a
previous owner’s family was involved in a fatal accident making this exact left turn
(Westbound) at 57th and Shea.

Exiting Shea into our neighborhood isn’t safer, and unfortunately, we know this
firsthand. In 2021, while pregnant, my wife was stopped in the turn lane on Shea and
58th, waiting for a break in traffic to get home and was sideswiped at 50mph. She was
rushed by ambulance to Honor Health Scottsdale Shea to see if our baby was still
alive. Due to the crash, her car was towed away and needed $15,000 in repairs and
$25,000 in emergency medical procedures and monitoring. And yes, the police were
called, and the driver was ticketed for speeding, reckless driving, and failure to avoid
an accident. We still don’t know if this accident inflicted any developmental issues
for our now one-year-old. 

After doing some research, we learned the individual who purchased the lot in
question has residential development projects in Paradise Valley south of us. This
creates another commuter drive to the site through our neighborhood of Mountain
View, Morning Glory, Sanna, 58th, 57th, and 56th that already have issues with non-
residents speeding and snaking through our streets to avoid Tatum or Scottsdale Rd
during high traffic hours while children are walking and waiting at bus stops. To that
point, from 7-9am M-F, only school buses driving Eastbound are permitted to head
South on Morning Glory to reach Doubletree Ranch Rd. With continued speeding
and safety issues, further action was taken by the Paradise Valley Police Department:
almost without fail, there is a marked police SUV that waits on the corner on
Mountain View and 57th every weekday morning. Us neighbors and residents gladly
welcome PVPD’s efforts to ensure our safety; adding more risky rush hour drivers
avoiding traffic is not what we want or need. Despite these efforts, the problem
persists. 

As a commercial property owner, I know firsthand the operational and ownership
attention that a building of this size needs. Without question, clients, staff, vendors,

Page 372
maintenance, and other service providers will utilize our neighborhood streets to
access the proposed site during the day. It’s a nonstop carousel to commercial sites;
commercial trash, commercial deliveries, commercial Fedex/UPS, commercial lawn
care, janitorial services, etc. Workers at the proposed site will, from time-to-time,
want some fresh air. Shea doesn’t provide that; they will undoubtedly walk our
neighborhoods. This is a major safety issue as strangers will be looking at or into our
homes. The increased vehicular and personnel volume is not what is wanted or
needed. 

We frequently walk, stroll, and wagon, in the precise area where an increase in traffic
would limit our family neighborhood outings. When we do walk outside, we always
go into the neighborhood, away from Shea. Three sets of close neighbors on 57th and
58th with children drive to our home so their children will not be hit by speeding cars.
We did not ever anticipate having these worries when we moved here. Had we known
we would be adding existing hazards with a new, complex layer that included the
commercialization of our streets, we wouldn’t have moved here two years ago.
Simply put, it's too dangerous.

Nighttime use isn’t any better. Just two months ago, we heard a knock on our door in
the evening from a non-resident cutting through our neighborhood. Our mailbox,
walking path and flowerpots in our front yard were destroyed and run over as the
driver was speeding and distracted, per my security cameras. (I opted not to file a
police report because the driver was a 17-year-old Chaparral Senior) His car was
totaled, and we incurred $8,000 worth of damage. We were left with a pile of rubble
and worry that they could have plowed into our home. We are living through another
accident just months and steps away from the last one. We were terrified. What if our
kids were outside? Why don’t others respect our speed bumps? Why didn’t he take
Scottsdale Rd or Tatum if you don’t live here? Why do nonresidents continue to speed
and snake through our streets? 

This incident and problems at night are not isolated. The rules of statistics say more
cars, more accidents, more people, more crime; a harrowing and uncomfortable
thought after our neighborhood has already experienced recurring vehicular tragedy.
Last week, on October 29th, there was an armed robbery where a resident was held at
gunpoint by a nonresident at the corner of 61st and Mountain View. The backyard of
the home next door was used as a point of entry; multiple family homes with children
were turned into crime scenes. As it relates to the proposed lot to be redeveloped, we
do not have the resources as a neighborhood to fend off bad actors using the facility
late at night as it is intended. We are a neighborhood at risk. 

According to LoopNet and CoStar, “go-to” commercial property databases, there is an
overabundance of office space varying in size, building age, rent per square foot, etc.
available for rent at the Tatum Shea and Scottsdale Shea intersections. There are also
lots available that currently conform to the zoning use proposed. Commercial lots do
not start until much further down Shea toward Tatum or Scottsdale Rd, making this a

Page 373
very awkward standalone commercial site, and risks bringing other commercial sites
to existing properties with older homes at nearby street corners, including our street
on 58th and Shea. If one gets zoning approval, others will follow suit. Commercial
real estate likes to be close to other commercial real estate. 

The proposed development site at the corner of 57th and Shea, where a home existed
until a few weeks ago, is not the “highest and best use” of this lot, a golden rule in
commercial real estate. Our neighborhood truly cannot stomach another tragedy. This
lot is a residential lot, has been historically, and should remain so in the future. Again,
simply put, it really is just too dangerous. This neighborhood has experienced fatal
accidents, mother and fetus trauma, armed robbery, and persistent negligent driving.
We encourage the future use of this site to conform with existing zoning laws for all
the reasons stated above.







Page 374
Authentisign ID: 7781B510-3E40-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




5FYG




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




+& 
! /2.*


 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

,& 
! /2.*
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

-& " 
  /2.*
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

.& 
  /2.*
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

/& 
 /2//
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

0& 
 /2//
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

1& "
#% /2/0
&

 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

2& 
 +**,3
&
/1
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

3&  
#

  30.*
&
/1
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+*& !
#

  30.*
&
/1
!! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

++&    /2.+

"!
$ '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+,& !#
! 3-++
&
/2
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+-& 
! 3-++
&
/2
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+.& 
 +**.2
&
/1
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+/& "
 3.0*
&
/1
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

+0& !
 30.*
&
/1
! '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''



Page 375
Page 376
Page 377
Page 378
Page 379
Page 380
Page 381
 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       

pat Labelle Pat Labelle
East Mountainview rd
Paradise Valley Az







 
 

 





Page 382
 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       
Guy Labelle 5721 East Mountianview rd
Paradise Valley Az 85253







 
 

 





Page 383
Authentisign ID: 11DCB1B8-FD40-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




).# 
! ,/'(
#

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

)/# "
" 0,0(
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

)0# 
" 0,0(
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*'# 
 (''*.
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*(# 
 0++.
#
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*)# 
 0++.
#
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

**# 
 0*'+
#
,/
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*+# 
 ,/).


!
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*,# 
 0+,0 #
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*-#  
 0+,0 #
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




Page 384
Authentisign ID: D9ED60F6-0E41-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




!$  
  !

#$


!%  
  !

#$


!&   
    

#$


"     

#$





Page 385
Page 386
Authentisign ID: 8D68574F-F841-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




-*% 

$ 2/1* %
./
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-+%  
 2-0* %
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-,% 
 2-0*%
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

--% 
$ .1-)

$#
! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-.% 
$ .1-)
%
$#
! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-/% $
 *)+),
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-0%  
 2-.)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-1% 
$ 2-0)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-2% 
$ 2-0)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

.)% $
 ./*)
%
 
" &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&




Page 387
Authentisign ID: 2F212486-D240-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




*0% 
 .2+*

! 
" &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

*1% 
 .1*.
  &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&& & &

*2% "
 .1*.

 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

+)% 
!  .1+, %

 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

+*% 
  2,2)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

++% 
  2,2)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
&&

+,% #
" .2+,

! 
" &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

+-% $
 2,)-
%
.1
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

+.% $ ! .1,2


 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

+/% !
! .1,2


 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&




Page 388
Authentisign ID: 11DCB1B8-FD40-ED11-A27C-14CB655B2CA7




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




).# 
! ,/'(
#

 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

)/# "
" 0,0(
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

)0# 
" 0,0(
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*'# 
 (''*.
#
,-
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*(# 
 0++.
#
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*)# 
 0++.
#
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

**# 
 0*'+
#
,/
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*+# 
 ,/).


!
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*,# 
 0+,0 #
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

*-#  
 0+,0 #
,.
 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$




Page 389
Authentisign ID: F64BFC57-0D5F-ED11-ADE6-0050F2765AB1




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




!$  
  !

#$


!%  
  !

#$


!&   
    

#$


"     

#$





Page 390
Authentisign ID: D37BDC26-0C5F-ED11-ADE6-0050F2765AB1




 
   
 

 



 

  

#

"



 
   

!
   $





 

   


 

 


 

       




-*% 

$ 2/1* %
./
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-+%  
 2-0* %
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-,% 
 2-0*%
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

--% 
$ .1-)

$#
! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-.% 
$ .1-)
%
$#
! &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-/% $
 *)+),
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-0%  
 2-.)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-1% 
$ 2-0)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

-2% 
$ 2-0)
%
.0
 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

.)% $
 ./*)
%
 
" &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&




Page 391
Page 392
3DWE





Page 393
Page 394
Page 395
Page 396
Page 397
Page 398